Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
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 4886 
