1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>CESTAT overturns penalties under Customs Act Section 112(1) due to lack of evidence</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the penalties imposed on them under Section 112(1) of the Customs ... Penalties u/s 112(1) of the CA 1962 - it was alleged that the appellant has imported the goods in question having cigarettes and eatables which are not permissible - absolute confiscation - Held that: - it is not coming out that the appellants have claimed themselves to the owner of the said goods although bill of lading is in the name of the M/s Dev International. But it is not coming from the fact that M/s Dev International has imported the said goods or not. The importer is a person who filed the bill of entry. Admittedly, no bill of entry is filed. In that circumstances, Shri Amit Nagi cannot be held of be an importer of the said goods - penalty not imposable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Imposition of penalties under Section 112(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellants.2. Ownership and importation of goods in question by the appellants.Analysis:Issue 1: The penalties imposed on the appellants under Section 112(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 were challenged before the Appellate Tribunal. The appellant argued that they were not the importers of the goods, did not file a bill of entry, and never claimed ownership of the goods. Therefore, they contended that no penalty should be imposed on them. The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal decision to support their argument. The Revenue, on the other hand, supported the impugned order based on the statements recorded during the investigation.Issue 2: The Tribunal analyzed the statements recorded during the investigation and the available records. It was observed that although the bill of lading was in the name of M/s Dev International, it was not conclusive evidence that M/s Dev International had imported the goods. Since no bill of entry was filed by the appellants, they could not be considered as the importers of the goods. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that without a filed bill of entry, allegations of misdeclaration of value and quantity were not sustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order imposing penalties on the appellants, as there was no evidence to establish their ownership or importation of the goods in question.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the penalties imposed on them under Section 112(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision was based on the lack of evidence proving the appellants' ownership or importation of the goods in question, as no bill of entry was filed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
