Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Imposition of penalty u/r 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2022 on the Appellant, who was the Director of Sales and Marketing of the co-noticee Company. The Respondent Department exhibited a non-responsive attitude. The case involved the interpretation of the "Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019". Despite acknowledging that the Appellant was responsible for Sales and Marketing activities, the Commissioner held the Appellant personally liable for the manufacture of goods by the Company and the evasion of excise duty. However, the CESTAT had previously set aside the penalty order against the Appellant in 2015, and no further proceedings were initiated. Additionally, even without an application under the "Sabka Vishwas Scheme", the penalty recoverable from the Appellant should be treated as "NIL" u/s 124(1)(b) of the Amended Finance Act, 2019. The charge against the Appellant imposing penalty is unsustainable in law and facts. The CESTAT allowed the appeal, stating that there exists no scope for re-adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
