<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Penalty upheld under Rule 26 for duty evasion via diversion and forged export documents in Central Excise case</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90615</link>
    <description>The CESTAT upheld the imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 against the appellant, a GPA holder, for involvement in evasion of Customs and Central Excise duty through diversion of finished goods into the Domestic Tariff Area without payment of duty. The Tribunal found the appellant and co-accused instrumental in executing a fraudulent scheme, including misuse of 100% EOU concessions and submission of forged export documents. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.11.2001 was held to be a valid legal document substantiating liability. Despite delays and repeated opportunities for personal hearing, the appellant failed to respond. The impugned Order-in-Original was deemed lawful, reasoned, and based on correc.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:22:45 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:22:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=836979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Penalty upheld under Rule 26 for duty evasion via diversion and forged export documents in Central Excise case</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90615</link>
      <description>The CESTAT upheld the imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 against the appellant, a GPA holder, for involvement in evasion of Customs and Central Excise duty through diversion of finished goods into the Domestic Tariff Area without payment of duty. The Tribunal found the appellant and co-accused instrumental in executing a fraudulent scheme, including misuse of 100% EOU concessions and submission of forged export documents. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.11.2001 was held to be a valid legal document substantiating liability. Despite delays and repeated opportunities for personal hearing, the appellant failed to respond. The impugned Order-in-Original was deemed lawful, reasoned, and based on correc.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:22:45 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90615</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>