Imposition of personal penalty on 3 persons for duty evasion by ...

High Court Overturns Penalty on Three for Duty Evasion; Lack of Evidence Violated Rule 26, Central Excise Rules 2002.

December 12, 2015

Case Laws Central Excise HC

Imposition of personal penalty on 3 persons for duty evasion by the manufacturer - the requisite evidence necessary for levy of penalty on each of the Appellants under Rule 26 of the CE Rules 2002 was not brought on record by the Department - no penalty - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

Imposition of personal penalty on 3 persons for duty evasion by ...

High Court Overturns Penalty on Three for Duty Evasion; Lack of Evidence Violated Rule 26, Central Excise Rules 2002.

December 12, 2015

Case Laws Central Excise HC

You may also like:

Clandestine production and removal - shortage of goods - duty evasion - The reliance of third party documents while conforming demand against present appellant is...

The High Court correctly distinguished between the jurisdiction vested in every person or public office and the District Registrar in determining penalty on...

Penalty u/r 26(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - charge of abating the evasion of duty by the Main Party - The appellant argued that since the main party's case of duty...

Recovery of differential duty (SAD) u/s 28(1) of CA for the imports made in all the Bills of Entry along with interest and penalties - The Tribunal confirmed the...

Penalty imposed by the Settlement Commission u/s 271(1)(c) - The petitioner argued against the penalty, citing lack of mens rea and the absence of evidence showing...

Demand of differential Central Excise Duty with interest and penalty - inflating freight charges through their dummy transport unit - The Tribunal affirmed the...

CESTAT dismissed an appeal concerning refund claims for excess Countervailing Duty (CVD) on mobile phone imports. The tribunal upheld rejection on three grounds:...

Demand of duty and Levy of penalty - Levy of penalty on Director - Clandestine removal - The demand was based on data printouts retrieved from a third party's computer,...

Central Excise demands cannot be sustained solely based on confessional statements without corroborative documentary evidence. Retracted affidavits cannot be relied upon...

Undervaluation of imported goods - Patchouli Oil - The CESTAT found that the rejection of the declared value lacked legal basis and was unsupported by evidence. The...

Clandestine removal - The department relied on statements, diaries, and records, which the appellants contested, citing coercion and lack of corroboration. The Tribunal...

Levy of Personal Penalty on the Director of the company and Drivers of the trucks (transporters) - Penalties u/r 26 of CER - Abetment - Clandestine removal - gutka - The...

Addition made u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act for alleged cash payments based on a WhatsApp message and statement of a third party. The key points are: The WhatsApp...

Levy of penalty u/s 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - evasion of duty - The imposition of penalty on both the appellants is un-called for - since Appellant No.1,...

Penalty imposed u/s 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment of illegal export by arranging lorries. Lack of admissible evidence showing knowledge of goods...

Quick Updates: