<?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>2022 (12) TMI 1191 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432074</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the order confirming the service tax demand, appropriation of paid amounts, imposition of interest, and penalty under Section 76. It held that as the appellant had paid the entire service tax liability before any show cause notice was issued and informed the Revenue authorities, the penalty was unjustified. The Tribunal ruled that the proceedings were against Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, and allowed the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2022 08:19:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=699991" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (12) TMI 1191 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432074</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the order confirming the service tax demand, appropriation of paid amounts, imposition of interest, and penalty under Section 76. It held that as the appellant had paid the entire service tax liability before any show cause notice was issued and informed the Revenue authorities, the penalty was unjustified. The Tribunal ruled that the proceedings were against Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, and allowed the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432074</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>