Omitted specified domestic transaction provision invalidates related-party expenditure transfer-pricing references and assessments based on consequent...
Preventive suspension requires an immediate continuing threat and cannot become indefinite without inquiry, fresh evidence, or proportionate safeguard...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004 on the appellant (employee of a merchant exporter). The Tribunal held the adjudicatory order failed to articulate how the appellant met the criteria of Rule 26(2), there was no evidence of pecuniary benefit beyond salary or of involvement in issuance/abetment of documents, and testimonial evidence lacked required corroboration. In light of binding precedent and the absence of confiscation of goods, the Tribunal concluded Rule 26 was inapplicable and quashed the personal penalty.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004 on the appellant (employee of a merchant exporter). The Tribunal held the adjudicatory order failed to articulate how the appellant met the criteria of Rule 26(2), there was no evidence of pecuniary benefit beyond salary or of involvement in issuance/abetment of documents, and testimonial evidence lacked required corroboration. In light of binding precedent and the absence of confiscation of goods, the Tribunal concluded Rule 26 was inapplicable and quashed the personal penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
