Penalty u/r 25 or 26 of CER - Mentioning wrong rule number - The ...

Central Excise

October 11, 2018

Penalty u/r 25 or 26 of CER - Mentioning wrong rule number - The first appellate authority was not correct in holding that mentioning Rule 25 was a typographical error and the intention was to impose penalty under Rule 26, because in the Order-in-Original, the lower authority has discussed as to why penalty is liable to be imposed under rule 25

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/r 25 or 26 of CER - Mentioning wrong rule number - The ...

Central Excise

October 11, 2018

You may also like:

Recovery of Cenvat credit - goods seized and confiscated are imported goods thus the provision of the Rules 25/26 of CER not applicable to the sized imported consignment...

Penalty u/r 25 of CER - storage of goods outside factory premises - imposition of penalty on the sole ground of non-observing of procedural requirement of Rule 4(4)...

Levy of penalty under Rule 25 cannot be imposed upon the main appellant for goods not manufactured by him - however penalty on director under Rule 26 confirmed - AT

Penalty - Bogus invoice issued without selling the goods – penalty would be attracted under Rule 25 (1) (d) as well as Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - AT

Imposition of penalty for abetment against the Chartered Accountant for giving wrong certificate - This action could not be described as an act to attract penalty under...

Imposition of penalty u/r 26(2) of CER, 2002 - CENVAT Credit - Wrong availment of credit and reversal thereof on being pointed out before the issue of SCN - maximum...

Penalty - whether wrong mentioning of provisions for invoking penalty would render the order illegal – Held No - tribunal is wrong in deleting the penalty - HC

Penalty under rule 26 of the CER, 2002 can be imposed on a person only when it is proved beyond doubt that the person dealing with excisable goods knew or had reason to...

Levy of penalty - Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - wrong E-way bill - in penal provision such as Section 129 of the GST Act, the element of intention to evade tax...

Even it would not be proper to penalize the appellant under Sections 76 and 78, when the first appellate authority waived the penalty under Section 77 itself - AT

Quick Updates: