Clandestine removal of goods - Manufacture of paan masala and ...

Tribunal Overlooked Key Evidence in Paan Masala Case; Penalty Dismissal Reconsidered, Remanded for Further Review.

June 12, 2015

Case Laws Central Excise HC

Clandestine removal of goods - Manufacture of paan masala and gutka - Cash found in office premises - Tribunal has erred in ignoring material evidence and has not recorded any finding for setting aside the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Officer. - matter remanded back - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

Clandestine removal of goods - Manufacture of paan masala and ...

Tribunal Overlooked Key Evidence in Paan Masala Case; Penalty Dismissal Reconsidered, Remanded for Further Review.

June 12, 2015

Case Laws Central Excise HC

You may also like:

Clandestine removal - The department relied on statements, diaries, and records, which the appellants contested, citing coercion and lack of corroboration. The Tribunal...

The ITAT Mumbai addressed two key issues in the case. Firstly, regarding the penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the tribunal held that the absence of a tick mark on the notice did...

The Appellate Tribunal considered the levy of penalty u/s 270A. The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed the penalty u/s 270A(9)(a) for misrepresentation of facts and...

Smuggling - illegal importation of the seized gold - Confiscation of the gold and Indian currency - The Tribunal found no evidence linking the seized Indian currency to...

The Calcutta High Court considered a case involving the clandestine removal of wire rods and the levy of a penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The...

Levy of penalty for delay in Submission of Documents - finalization of the provisional assessments - The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in document submission but noted...

Penalty proceedings u/s 270A - Applicable rate of penalty - The Appellate Tribunal noted that while the penalty notice cited under-reporting of income, the AO imposed...

Confiscation of imported liquor cases, imposition of penalties, and demand of duty. The Tribunal held that there was no intentional misdeclaration or fraudulent intent...

The Appellate Tribunal considered an ex-parte assessment u/s 144 and an application for additional evidence. The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed...

This case pertains to an alleged offense under FEMA involving bogus purported exports with inflated invoices to obtain export benefits, where the goods never reached the...

The case involved a challenge to penalty orders u/ss 271D and 271E before the Appellate Tribunal. The issue revolved around the reassessment proceedings being quashed,...

The case involves the statutory interpretation of Entry 41 of Schedule II of the Act regarding the classification of a product as a medicated ointment. The court...

CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, considered a case involving penalty u/s 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on a co-noticee who is a Partner in a Customs Broker firm for...

Levy of penalty for abetting in mis-declaration of imported goods - Revocation of Courier License - The tribunal ruled that penalty under this section could only be...

The key points are: misdeclaration of goods by the importer cannot render the Customs House Agent (CHA) vicariously liable for penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962....

Quick Updates: