<?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 (9) TMI 33 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34625</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s order for penalty imposition for certain months but upholding it for an earlier period under Section 76 of the Finance Act for delayed service tax payments by consulting engineering service providers. The penalty for April, June, and August 2005 was reinstated, while the penalty for the previous period remained upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73243" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 33 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34625</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s order for penalty imposition for certain months but upholding it for an earlier period under Section 76 of the Finance Act for delayed service tax payments by consulting engineering service providers. The penalty for April, June, and August 2005 was reinstated, while the penalty for the previous period remained upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34625</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>