Central Excise - Highlights / Catch Notes

The Calcutta High Court considered a case involving the ...

HC upheld penalty u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for clandestine removal of wire rods.

Case Laws Central Excise

May 27, 2024

The Calcutta High Court considered a case involving the clandestine removal of wire rods and the levy of a penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The court noted the lack of specific findings on the confiscable nature of the goods and the failure to follow a previous order. The appellant provided details of brokers and transporters involved. The tribunal found the penalty justified based on various evidence, including computerized records and statements. The appellate authority upheld the penalty, considering the lack of invoice evidence and rejecting a belated retraction. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision on voluntary confessional statements. The tribunal affirmed the findings, distinguishing a previous case. Ultimately, the court found no substantial legal questions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The Calcutta High Court considered a case involving the ...

HC upheld penalty u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for clandestine removal of wire rods.

Case Laws Central Excise

May 27, 2024

You may also like:

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

Penalty u/r 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - appellant was Director during relevant period - Since the demand of the duty has already been settled under SVLDRS...

Levy of penalty in the absence of confiscation - penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 even in case where there is no proposal for confiscation can be...

Penalty under Rule 26(1) of Central excise rules 2002 - Bogus Cenvatable invoices issued - the appellant was liable to pay penalty - AT

Revocation of registration under Central Excise - Revocation of registration, not provided for in Central Excise Rules, 2002 and only in exercise of power of Central...

Penalty on directors - Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules - Rule 26 is prima facie in excess of the Rule making power conferred under the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HC

Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Contravention of Rule 8(3A) - penalty under Rule 25 is not permissible, but penalty under Rule 27 is to be imposed - AT

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...

Cenvat Credit - As per various judgments also it can be seen that the Credit was regularized in case of wire drawing units as per the amendment made in Rule 16 of...

Levy of penalty on Proprietor of the Firm under Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - fraudulent availment of CENVAT Credit - Taking note of the fact that penalty...

Since Appellant were paying the duty utilizing the CENVAT Credit they cannot be charged for contravention of the provisions of Rule 4, 8(1), 8(3) & 8(3A) of the Central...

Imposition of Penalty u/r 26 of CER, 2002 - quantum of penalty - clandestine removal - appellant unknowingly got involved as an employee in the clandestine activity of...

Levy of penalty u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - fraudulent passing of cenvat Credit - it is clearly established that the appellant has facilitated by only issuing...

Levy of penalty u/r 26 - Personal penalty for abatement in evasion of duty - a plain reading of Rule 26 indicates that imposition of the penalty therein is not tied to a...

Penatly - default in payment of duty - provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - penalty under Rule 27 only can be imposed - no penalty under Rule 25...

Quick Updates: