Penalty u/r 25 or 26 of CER - Mentioning wrong rule number - The ...

Appellate authority misinterprets Rule 25 as typographical error; original order clearly intended penalty u/r 25.

October 11, 2018

Case Laws Central Excise AT

Penalty u/r 25 or 26 of CER - Mentioning wrong rule number - The first appellate authority was not correct in holding that mentioning Rule 25 was a typographical error and the intention was to impose penalty under Rule 26, because in the Order-in-Original, the lower authority has discussed as to why penalty is liable to be imposed under rule 25

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/r 25 or 26 of CER - Mentioning wrong rule number - The ...

Appellate authority misinterprets Rule 25 as typographical error; original order clearly intended penalty u/r 25.

October 11, 2018

Case Laws Central Excise AT

You may also like:

The subordinate authority is not empowered to supersede the orders passed by the appellate authority and an administrative discipline requires that the subordinate...

Levy of Penalty u/s 129(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Errors in e-way bills - The Court emphasized that minor typographical errors in e-way bills,...

Respondents made a concession before the Regulatory Authority to accept interest only on amounts paid after RERA implementation. However, before the Appellate Authority,...

Principles of Natural justice - late filing of return - intent to evade or not - it is the case of petitioner is that various aspects have not been dealt with or...

HC condoned delay in filing appeal by small partnership firm, setting aside appellate authority's rejection. Court found appellate authority erroneously limited...

Gross violation of CBEC instructions and the precedential value of CESTAT decisions. The Revenue filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority without specifying...

Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the appellate authority - Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Power and Jurisdiction of appellate...

Petitioner challenged order passed u/s 129(3) of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for alleged tax evasion due to typographical error in date on E-way Bill and Tax...

Clandestine manufacture and recovery of Central Excise Duty along with interest and penalty - suppression of facts and misrepresentation alleged against petitioner -...

Exercise of jurisdiction erroneously - Erroneous application of provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Validity of assessment orders - Institutional...

Rectification of errors in filing GST Returns - The case involved errors made by the petitioner in their GST returns for the period July 2017, initially by incorrectly...

HC found no violation of natural justice principles in the appellate proceedings. The authority had fully complied with Section 107(9) by granting the petitioner...

Imported flow meters, pressure transmitters, level transmitters, parts and accessories were classified under tariff headings 9032 8990 and 9032 9000 or 9026 of Customs...

Levy of penalty - vehicle number in Part-B of the e-way bill was incorrect - minor typographical error - Typically when the error is a minor error of the nature found in...

Refund of the excess Customs duty paid - excess duty collection arisen due to typographical error in the documents provided by the importer - The assessing authority can...

Quick Updates: