Limitation in customs appeals permits exclusion for bona fide refund proceedings, enabling restoration of Bill of Entry assessment challenges on merit...
Warehousing permission requires deposit at the designated bonded warehouse; unauthorised diversion triggers confiscation, redemption fine and importer...
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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
