<?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>Body corporate falls within &quot;person&quot; under Rule 26, and penalty stands where goods were liable to confiscation.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99822</link>
    <description>Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 applies to a body corporate because the term &quot;person&quot; 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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 09:09:55 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 09:09:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=902301" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Body corporate falls within &quot;person&quot; under Rule 26, and penalty stands where goods were liable to confiscation.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99822</link>
      <description>Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 applies to a body corporate because the term &quot;person&quot; 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.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 09:09:55 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99822</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>