<?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 (1) TMI 331 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30976</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order enhancing penalties under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for delay in tax payment on sale of recharge coupons of mobile phones. The Tribunal reinstated the Assistant Commissioner&#039;s decision, as the tax liability remained in dispute and the appellants had already paid the tax, concluding that the revision of penalties by the Commissioner was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69629" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 331 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30976</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order enhancing penalties under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for delay in tax payment on sale of recharge coupons of mobile phones. The Tribunal reinstated the Assistant Commissioner&#039;s decision, as the tax liability remained in dispute and the appellants had already paid the tax, concluding that the revision of penalties by the Commissioner was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30976</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>