<?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 (8) TMI 31 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30860</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 but modified the order by reducing the penalty under Section 76 for the Appellants, small-scale cable operators. The Tribunal found no intent to evade tax and set aside the penalty under Section 78, emphasizing the importance of considering the taxpayer&#039;s circumstances in penalty imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 16:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69513" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 31 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30860</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 but modified the order by reducing the penalty under Section 76 for the Appellants, small-scale cable operators. The Tribunal found no intent to evade tax and set aside the penalty under Section 78, emphasizing the importance of considering the taxpayer&#039;s circumstances in penalty imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30860</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>