<?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>2008 (4) TMI 150 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30613</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed, setting aside the penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Appellant, an Authorised Automobile Service Station, had paid the tax voluntarily before the show cause notice was issued, following a Board Circular resolving confusion on tax liability. The Tribunal found no mala fide intent and cited precedents to support the decision that penalties were not applicable for delayed tax payments in such cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2014 17:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69268" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 150 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30613</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed, setting aside the penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Appellant, an Authorised Automobile Service Station, had paid the tax voluntarily before the show cause notice was issued, following a Board Circular resolving confusion on tax liability. The Tribunal found no mala fide intent and cited precedents to support the decision that penalties were not applicable for delayed tax payments in such cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30613</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>