<?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 36 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32722</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was waived because tax had been paid, no contumacious conduct was found, and the assessee showed reasonable cause through financial hardship and family illness, attracting relief under Section 80. Penalty under Section 75A was sustained because it fell outside the scope of that relief provision and no sufficient basis was found to disturb the levy. The appeal was thus allowed only in part, with deletion of the Section 76 penalty alone.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71360" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 36 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32722</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was waived because tax had been paid, no contumacious conduct was found, and the assessee showed reasonable cause through financial hardship and family illness, attracting relief under Section 80. Penalty under Section 75A was sustained because it fell outside the scope of that relief provision and no sufficient basis was found to disturb the levy. The appeal was thus allowed only in part, with deletion of the Section 76 penalty alone.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32722</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>