<?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 200 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31042</link>
    <description>Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellant gave a satisfactory explanation for the forty-three-day delay, including repeated visits to the police station due to disputes with cable operators. Pre-deposit of penalties was fully waived pending disposal of the appeal since the tax liability and interest had already been paid, and the impugned order had imposed penalties requiring deposit before the appeal could proceed. The appeal was therefore allowed to proceed without pre-deposit, while the merits of the penalty dispute were left undecided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69695" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 200 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31042</link>
      <description>Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellant gave a satisfactory explanation for the forty-three-day delay, including repeated visits to the police station due to disputes with cable operators. Pre-deposit of penalties was fully waived pending disposal of the appeal since the tax liability and interest had already been paid, and the impugned order had imposed penalties requiring deposit before the appeal could proceed. The appeal was therefore allowed to proceed without pre-deposit, while the merits of the penalty dispute were left undecided.</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=31042</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>