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 December 2024 Year 2024 This

The CESTAT held that the importer was entitled to exemption ...


Biotech firm & employee exonerated in duty exemption case; No intent to evade, no penalty.

December 6, 2024

Case Laws     Central Excise     AT

The CESTAT held that the importer was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CUS entry Sr. No. 108 description (A) for their drugs and bulk drugs, which did not involve conditions prescribed under description (B). Since the duty demand itself was unsustainable against the company, the personal penalty imposed on their employee (the appellant) u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2012 for aiding or abetting duty evasion was set aside. The Tribunal observed no suppression of facts or mala fide intent by the company or the appellant in availing the notification. Relying on a Gujarat High Court decision, the personal penalty was held unsustainable for an interpretational issue. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.

View Source

 


 

You may also like:

  1. Central excise duty exemption notification dated 01.03.2002 was denied, leading to recovery of duty, interest, and penalty. The extended period of limitation was invoked....

  2. Levy of penalty - at the time of detention was that one of the E-Way Bills had expired - The High court held that mens rea to evade tax is essential for imposing...

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

  4. Levy of penalties u/ss 122 and 129 of CGST/SGST Acts - expiry of e-way bill - mens rea in penalty imposition. Technically, violation of law by petitioner in transporting...

  5. Levy of penalty - non filling up of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill - existence of mens rea or not The High Court referenced a specific case and highlighted that the issue of...

  6. The Appellate Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation for demand of duty could not be invoked as there was no suppression of facts or intent to evade...

  7. The High Court quashed penalty u/s E-Way Bill violation, classifying goods as ODC due to speed without intent to evade tax. Relying on precedent, mens rea is essential...

  8. Refund of CENVAT credit of CVD and SAD paid by them - appellant has paid the duties only after issuing SCN - there is no allegation of any fraud, collusion or...

  9. Imposition of tax and penalty u/s 129(3) - e-way bill had expired nine hours and thirty minutes prior to interception - The High court referred to previous cases where...

  10. Excise duty leviable on copper anode moulds used for captive consumption despite marketability issue. Cost of moulds subsumed in copper anode cost, double taxation...

  11. Classification of imported goods - LC PUFA Mix Oil with Sofinol (edible grade) - whether to be classified under CTH 15079010 or CTH 15179090 - importer misclassified...

  12. Mandatory penalty u/s 11AC - if there is no intent to evade payment of duty, no penalty u/s 11AC - HC

  13. Penalty order - Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled up - intent to evade tax - The High court, referencing a previous judgment, ruled that such technical errors, in...

  14. Levy of penalty - goods were unloaded at a place that was not registered in the registration certificate - unloading goods at a location not specified in the e-way bill...

  15. Levy of penalty for violation of section 129 and Rule 138 - Failure to update the E-way bill on change of vehicle after breakdown - The imposition of penalties for mere...

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates