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 ...
Page of 4789
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
121 to 140 of 95770 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4789
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
