Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Penalty imposed u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002 set aside due to violation of principles of natural justice and lack of evidence. Department's case based solely on statements without allowing cross-examination. Rule 26 penalty requires involvement in clearance of goods liable for confiscation, which was not established against the appellants. Imposition of penalty u/r 26 unsustainable as appellants not involved in activities attracting Rule 26. Penalty on directors set aside as one director not concerned with activities at the relevant plant. Appeals of three appellants allowed, fourth appellant's appeal partly allowed.
Penalty imposed u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002 set aside due to violation of principles of natural justice and lack of evidence. Department's case based solely on statements without allowing cross-examination. Rule 26 penalty requires involvement in clearance of goods liable for confiscation, which was not established against the appellants. Imposition of penalty u/r 26 unsustainable as appellants not involved in activities attracting Rule 26. Penalty on directors set aside as one director not concerned with activities at the relevant plant. Appeals of three appellants allowed, fourth appellant's appeal partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
