Back
T. S. SIVAGNANAM, HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Anurag Steel Enterprise – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Howrah – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.
1. This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) is directed against the final order dated 4th May, 2023 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kolkata. The appellant assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:
(B) Whether penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is imposable upon any person without arriving at specific finding about the prior knowledge and/or reasons to believe about confiscable nature of any exercisable goods under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and/or Rules made thereunder?
(F) Whether the Ld. Tribunal below has miserably failed to follow their own Final Order No. 75583-75585/2020 dated 12.11.2020 passed in Excise Appeal No. 76211 of 2018 [M/s. Jai Balaji Industries Limited (Unit-III) v. Commissioner of CGST and CX, Bolpur Commissionerate], amongst others, whereat the Ld. Tribunal has held that the recov
Senior management can be held liable for penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules for knowledge and complicity in clandestine activities, even without direct involvement in daily operation....
Voluntary confessions, when supported by corroborative evidence, can form a valid basis for establishing liability under excise laws.
The court emphasized the importance of examining the voluntariness of a statement and the need for corroboration of evidence, rejecting a belated retraction and upholding the penalty based on the tru....
The admissibility of a statement and the validity of a retraction, as well as the role of the accused in the commission of the offense, are crucial in determining liability under the Customs Act.
Point of law: Section 112(a) of the Act is applicable to a person, who in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any action, which act or omission would render such goods liable for confiscation ....
The tribunal clarified the procedural requirements for admissibility of statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act, establishing that improper evidence leads to invalidation of confiscation....
Fraudulent amendment of shipping bills requires adherence to statutory evidential procedures; failure renders penalties invalid.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
