<?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 (9) TMI 293 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33875</link>
    <description>The Tribunal reviewed an appeal against non-compliance with service tax payment formalities in Security Agency&#039;s Services. The appellants had underpaid Rs. 16,98,522, leading to a show-cause notice and penalty imposition. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands but did not impose penalties under specific sections, except a Rs. 10,000 penalty on the Managing Partner. Despite concerns of bias, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Original, recognizing different officer roles. The Tribunal noted pre-notice payments and client recovery efforts, setting aside the Rs. 10,000 penalty and upholding interest payment. The appeal succeeded pending Kerala High Court&#039;s valuation decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 293 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33875</link>
      <description>The Tribunal reviewed an appeal against non-compliance with service tax payment formalities in Security Agency&#039;s Services. The appellants had underpaid Rs. 16,98,522, leading to a show-cause notice and penalty imposition. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands but did not impose penalties under specific sections, except a Rs. 10,000 penalty on the Managing Partner. Despite concerns of bias, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Original, recognizing different officer roles. The Tribunal noted pre-notice payments and client recovery efforts, setting aside the Rs. 10,000 penalty and upholding interest payment. The appeal succeeded pending Kerala High Court&#039;s valuation decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>