<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (9) TMI 129 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427184</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The decision was based on the lack of evidence of suppression to evade tax, the timely payment of tax before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice, and adherence to legal principles. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of prompt tax payment and the necessity of establishing suppression for penalty imposition under Section 78.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2022 08:05:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=689649" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 129 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427184</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The decision was based on the lack of evidence of suppression to evade tax, the timely payment of tax before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice, and adherence to legal principles. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of prompt tax payment and the necessity of establishing suppression for penalty imposition under Section 78.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>