Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2161 to 2180 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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
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
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
