https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198467 The tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, accused of orchestrating the diversion of imported goods meant for a 100% Export Oriented Unit, contested the findings but failed to refute the employee's statement implicating them in fraudulent activities. The tribunal found the penalty justified, dismissing the appeal for lacking merit. Judgment was pronounced on December 8, 2016. en-us Thu, 08 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 18:24:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198467 The tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, accused of orchestrating the diversion of imported goods meant for a 100% Export Oriented Unit, contested the findings but failed to refute the employee's statement implicating them in fraudulent activities. The tribunal found the penalty justified, dismissing the appeal for lacking merit. Judgment was pronounced on December 8, 2016. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 08 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198467