Levy of penalty u/r 26 on the Director of the company - ...

Penalty on Director Overturned Due to Insufficient Evidence and Lack of Cross-Examination Under Central Excise Act.

January 30, 2024

Case Laws Central Excise AT

Levy of penalty u/r 26 on the Director of the company - Allegation of Clandestine removal of goods - The Tribunal observed that the statement of an employee, admitting to supplying goods, did not specify quantities, values, or payments, making it insufficient as evidence. - Further, The adjudicating authority did not cross-examine the employee, as required under Section 9 (d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Without cross-examination, the employee's statement could not be relied upon as evidence. - No penalty - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Levy of penalty u/r 26 on the Director of the company - ...

Penalty on Director Overturned Due to Insufficient Evidence and Lack of Cross-Examination Under Central Excise Act.

January 30, 2024

Case Laws Central Excise AT

You may also like:

Central Excise demands cannot be sustained solely based on confessional statements without corroborative documentary evidence. Retracted affidavits cannot be relied upon...

The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA 1973. The appellant argued lack of material and violation of natural...

Clandestine removal of excisable goods alleged based on statements recorded from partners, employees, and buyers. Section 9D of Central Excise Act mandates...

The ITAT Indore addressed unexplained cash investment for property purchase post search operation. Addition without cross-examination was challenged. The Tribunal...

Principles of Natural Justice - Levy of Penalty - It is no doubt true that there is no right of cross-examination if sufficient corroborative evidence exists, but in the...

The High Court addressed a case involving a violation of natural justice principles due to the rejection of the petitioner's request for cross-examination in a matter...

The AT rejected appellant's contention that denial of cross-examination of departmental officers violated natural justice principles. The tribunal distinguished between...

Undervaluation of imported goods - Patchouli Oil - The CESTAT found that the rejection of the declared value lacked legal basis and was unsupported by evidence. The...

Seizure of tobacco and loss of the same due to file - Liability of central excise department - Whether the Trial Court has committed error of facts and law in passing...

Penalty imposed u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002 set aside due to violation of principles of natural justice and lack of evidence. Department's case based solely on...

Violation of principles of natural justice - denial of cross-examination - revocation of customs broker license, forfeiture of security deposit, and penalty imposed by...

Penalties levied u/ss 271D and 271E were challenged. The assessee was found to have violated Sections 269SS and 269T. However, there was no concrete finding that the...

Denial of cross-examination process of witness - ACIT restricted cross examination process by denying the questions asked by the Petitioner during cross examination -...

Imposition of penalties on the appellants u/ss 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority failed to consider the appellants' request for...

Principles of natural justice - rejection of cross-examination - The petitioner has approached this Court prematurely as the respondents have only rejected the request...

Quick Updates: