TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act could be sustained when the appellant had been discharged in criminal proceedings on the same material and evidence.
Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the High Court, while considering the appellant's discharge petition, had examined the same statements and documentary material relied upon by the customs authorities and found no material to make out even a prima facie case against the appellant. The Tribunal also considered the settled distinction between criminal prosecution and departmental adjudication, but held that where the very same evidence had been rejected by the criminal court at the stage of discharge in relation to the same allegations, the departmental penalty based on that material could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The penalty was held unsustainable and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The impugned penalty order was set aside as the departmental finding could not stand on the same evidence after the appellant's discharge by the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: Where departmental penalty rests on the same facts and evidence that have been found insufficient to proceed against the person in criminal proceedings, the penalty cannot be sustained.
TaxTMI 
