<?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>2009 (2) TMI 33 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32711</link>
    <description>Penalty under the service tax regime was examined only on the question of waiver or reduction, with the assessee relying on illness, disability and Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal treated the default as arising at an early stage of implementation, noted that the tax involvement was very low, and found the original penalty disproportionate. To prevent recurrence of default, it reduced the penalty and granted partial relief to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 12:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71349" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 33 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32711</link>
      <description>Penalty under the service tax regime was examined only on the question of waiver or reduction, with the assessee relying on illness, disability and Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal treated the default as arising at an early stage of implementation, noted that the tax involvement was very low, and found the original penalty disproportionate. To prevent recurrence of default, it reduced the penalty and granted partial relief to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32711</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>