TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appeals against personal penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could survive after the main demand stood settled under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.
Analysis: The appeals concerned co-noticees challenging personal penalties imposed in the same order-in-original. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that once the principal dispute is settled under the legacy dispute resolution scheme, the connected appeals against co-noticees arising from the same order cannot be sustained.
Conclusion: The appeals were held not maintainable and were allowed in favour of the appellants.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
