<?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 137 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32158</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Appellants&#039; liability to pay service tax and justified the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, due to their delayed tax payment. Despite initial confusion, the Appellants were deemed responsible for the tax, leading to a reduced penalty of Rs. 20,000 considering factors like timely tax deposit and delays by authorities in releasing funds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70800" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 137 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32158</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Appellants&#039; liability to pay service tax and justified the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, due to their delayed tax payment. Despite initial confusion, the Appellants were deemed responsible for the tax, leading to a reduced penalty of Rs. 20,000 considering factors like timely tax deposit and delays by authorities in releasing funds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32158</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>