Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Central Excise - Highlights / Catch Notes

Home Highlights October 2024 Year 2024 This

Penalty imposed u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002 set aside ...


Directors escape excise duty penalty due to lack of evidence, denial of cross-examination and failure to establish involvement.

Case Laws     Central Excise

October 8, 2024

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 statements without allowing cross-examination. Rule 26 penalty requires involvement in clearance of goods liable for confiscation, which was not established against the appellants. Imposition of penalty u/r 26 unsustainable as appellants not involved in activities attracting Rule 26. Penalty on directors set aside as one director not concerned with activities at the relevant plant. Appeals of three appellants allowed, fourth appellant's appeal partly allowed.

View Source

 


 

You may also like:

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

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

  3. 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...

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

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

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

  9. Validity of reassessment order u/s 147 - Denial of Cross-Examination Opportunity - Reliance of statement of third party - The High Court noted that the petitioner did...

  10. 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...

  11. Clandestine Removal - threshold limit of SSI Exemption - third party evidences reliable or not - It is settled that statements of dealers and transporters and the...

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

  13. 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...

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

  15. Violation of principles of natural justice - opportunity for cross-examination. Evidentiary value of statements recorded u/s 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be...

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates