<?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>2007 (7) TMI 246 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30998</link>
    <description>Prima facie, penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act was considered unsustainable in the stay proceedings, having regard to the cited precedents and the circumstances that the original authority had already reduced the demand and imposed penalties for other defaults. On that basis, the Tribunal held that insistence on deposit of the penalty amount was not warranted pending disposal of the appeal, and the pre-deposit requirement was waived in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 246 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30998</link>
      <description>Prima facie, penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act was considered unsustainable in the stay proceedings, having regard to the cited precedents and the circumstances that the original authority had already reduced the demand and imposed penalties for other defaults. On that basis, the Tribunal held that insistence on deposit of the penalty amount was not warranted pending disposal of the appeal, and the pre-deposit requirement was waived in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30998</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>