TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty proceedings under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 could survive when the respondents had already been exonerated in disciplinary proceedings on the same charges and evidence.
Analysis: The disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 were completed and the charges against the respondents were dropped. The penalty proceedings under the Customs Act were founded on the same allegations and the same evidence. In such a situation, the basis for imposing penalty stood removed, and the customs penalty proceedings could not be sustained independently.
Conclusion: The penalty proceedings under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 were held not to survive, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
