ESOP expenditure allowed as FMV difference; long-term capital gain issue sent back for collector rate determination; deferred income additions disallo...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
