<?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 (4) TMI 49 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33244</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 77, stating ignorance of law does not justify avoiding penalties. The Tribunal vacated the enhanced penalty under Section 78, finding the Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction. The assessee&#039;s invocation of Section 80 was rejected, as confusion over tax obligations and non-recovery from clients were insufficient reasons to avoid penalties. Despite no intent to evade payment, the assessee was held liable for penalties under Sections 76 and 77. The appeal was allowed in part, with penalties under Sections 76 and 77 upheld and the enhanced penalty under Section 78 vacated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71877" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 49 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33244</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 77, stating ignorance of law does not justify avoiding penalties. The Tribunal vacated the enhanced penalty under Section 78, finding the Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction. The assessee&#039;s invocation of Section 80 was rejected, as confusion over tax obligations and non-recovery from clients were insufficient reasons to avoid penalties. Despite no intent to evade payment, the assessee was held liable for penalties under Sections 76 and 77. The appeal was allowed in part, with penalties under Sections 76 and 77 upheld and the enhanced penalty under Section 78 vacated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33244</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>