<?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 (7) TMI 121 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31294</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the demand of service tax on the cable operator based on the definition provided in the Finance Act. However, the penalties imposed on the appellant were set aside as they proved a reasonable cause for their belief that they were not liable for service tax. The appeal was decided in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of understanding legal definitions and proving reasonable cause for non-compliance to avoid penalties under tax laws.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69943" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 121 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31294</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the demand of service tax on the cable operator based on the definition provided in the Finance Act. However, the penalties imposed on the appellant were set aside as they proved a reasonable cause for their belief that they were not liable for service tax. The appeal was decided in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of understanding legal definitions and proving reasonable cause for non-compliance to avoid penalties under tax laws.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31294</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>