Personal hearing requirements in GST adjudication were satisfied by prior opportunities and written submissions; appellate limitation received writ-pe...
Interactive flat panels meeting automatic data processing conditions are distinguished from monitors, while later classification clarifications apply ...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
761 to 780 of 95957 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 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
