<?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 (5) TMI 120 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31043</link>
    <description>The Member (J) found no grounds for invoking the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the Applicant was directed to deposit Rs. 30,000 within six weeks. Upon this deposit, the pre-deposit of the remaining penalty was waived until the appeal&#039;s disposal. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance and timely adherence to Tribunal orders, balancing the interests of the Applicant and the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 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=69696" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 120 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31043</link>
      <description>The Member (J) found no grounds for invoking the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the Applicant was directed to deposit Rs. 30,000 within six weeks. Upon this deposit, the pre-deposit of the remaining penalty was waived until the appeal&#039;s disposal. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance and timely adherence to Tribunal orders, balancing the interests of the Applicant and the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31043</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>