Personal Penalty on Directors Requires Proof of ‘Knowing Involvement’: CESTAT Quashes S. 78A Penalty

HomeIndirect TaxesPersonal Penalty on Directors Requires Proof of ‘Knowing Involvement’: CESTAT Quashes S....

Personal Penalty on Directors Requires Proof of ‘Knowing Involvement’: CESTAT Quashes S. 78A Penalty

Indirect Taxes Top Stories

Published on

31/12/2025

By Mariya Paliwala

Personal Penalty on Directors Requires Proof of ‘Knowing Involvement’: CESTAT Quashes S. 78A Penalty

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on a former director under Section 78A of the Finance Act, 1994, holding that the mandatory legal requirements for fastening individual liability were not satisfied. The dispute arose from a show…

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Mariya Paliwala https://www.jurishour.in/

Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Tags
Knowing Involvement

Personal Penalty on Directors Requires Proof of ‘Knowing Involvement’: CESTAT Quashes S. 78A Penalty

Membership Required

Latest articles

SAD Refund Limitation to Be Counted from Date of Domestic Sale And Not From The Date of Import: Calcutta HC

Titan Challenges Deemed Supply Provision Under GST: Madras High Court to Examine Taxability of Unreturned Job Work Inputs

Can Service Tax Be Demanded Solely on Form 26AS Data Without Pre-SCN Consultation? Gauhati High Court Remand Back Matter to CESTAT

Amended Formula U/R 89 (5) For Inverted Duty Refunds Is Retrospectively Applicable: Andhra Pradesh HC

More like this

SAD Refund Limitation to Be Counted from Date of Domestic Sale And Not From The Date of Import: Calcutta HC

Titan Challenges Deemed Supply Provision Under GST: Madras High Court to Examine Taxability of Unreturned Job Work Inputs

Can Service Tax Be Demanded Solely on Form 26AS Data Without Pre-SCN Consultation? Gauhati High Court Remand Back Matter to CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories