Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2841 to 2860 of 95916 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 applies to a body corporate because the term "person" is not confined to natural persons; the Tribunal relied on the General Clauses Act and broader statutory context to reject the argument that a company cannot be penalised. Penalty was also sustainable because the goods were liable to confiscation, and actual confiscation was not required where the appellant knew or had reason to believe that undervaluation and duty short-payment had occurred. On the facts already concluded in the common adjudication order, the Tribunal upheld the penalty and dismissed the appeal.
Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 applies to a body corporate because the term "person" is not confined to natural persons; the Tribunal relied on the General Clauses Act and broader statutory context to reject the argument that a company cannot be penalised. Penalty was also sustainable because the goods were liable to confiscation, and actual confiscation was not required where the appellant knew or had reason to believe that undervaluation and duty short-payment had occurred. On the facts already concluded in the common adjudication order, the Tribunal upheld the penalty and dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
