<?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 (3) TMI 22 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32716</link>
    <description>Service tax demand and interest were not contested, but the penalty issue turned on whether reasonable cause existed for non-payment. The appellant&#039;s status as a proprietary concern, prevailing doubt on taxability, and a Board circular cited in support were treated as circumstances showing bona fide doubt. On that basis, the statutory provision permitting waiver of penalty was properly invoked, and the penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 22 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32716</link>
      <description>Service tax demand and interest were not contested, but the penalty issue turned on whether reasonable cause existed for non-payment. The appellant&#039;s status as a proprietary concern, prevailing doubt on taxability, and a Board circular cited in support were treated as circumstances showing bona fide doubt. On that basis, the statutory provision permitting waiver of penalty was properly invoked, and the penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32716</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>