<?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>2024 (8) TMI 606 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756902</link>
    <description>CESTAT NEW DELHI set aside penalty enhancement under section 78 of FA after finding that Commissioner (Appeals) had already set aside the entire proceeding, leaving no penalty to survive. The tribunal held that since no penalty existed following the 16.02.2023 order, the subsequent 28.02.2023 order enhancing penalty was passed by mistake due to non-production of the earlier order. The appeal was allowed and the penalty enhancement order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2024 08:24:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=763773" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 606 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756902</link>
      <description>CESTAT NEW DELHI set aside penalty enhancement under section 78 of FA after finding that Commissioner (Appeals) had already set aside the entire proceeding, leaving no penalty to survive. The tribunal held that since no penalty existed following the 16.02.2023 order, the subsequent 28.02.2023 order enhancing penalty was passed by mistake due to non-production of the earlier order. The appeal was allowed and the penalty enhancement order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756902</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>