<?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 (8) TMI 103 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31923</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was held unsustainable where penalty under Section 78 had already been imposed for the same default, as simultaneous penalties for identical conduct amount to double jeopardy. The Tribunal applied its earlier precedent and found it squarely covered the facts, particularly since the appellant had already paid the service tax, interest, and part of the penalty. The Section 76 penalty was set aside and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 16:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70568" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 103 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31923</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was held unsustainable where penalty under Section 78 had already been imposed for the same default, as simultaneous penalties for identical conduct amount to double jeopardy. The Tribunal applied its earlier precedent and found it squarely covered the facts, particularly since the appellant had already paid the service tax, interest, and part of the penalty. The Section 76 penalty was set aside and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>