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 penalties imposed on a broker for alleged involvement in forged or fraudulently obtained advance licences were sustainable under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Analysis: The liability to penalty required proof that the appellant had dealt with the goods and had the requisite knowledge of the wrongful nature of the transactions. The record did not contain direct clinching evidence showing that the appellant knew the licences were fake, forged or fictitious. The circumstances relied upon by the Revenue created suspicion, but did not establish awareness on the required standard. It was also found that the appellant was not shown to have dealt with the goods themselves, nor was any direct nexus proved between him and the alleged fictitious export or misuse of licences by the 100% EOU. In penal matters, strict construction was required, and the binding precedent on Rule 209A applied only where the person concerned dealt with excisable goods with knowledge of confiscability. On the facts, neither the ingredients of Rule 209A nor those of Section 112(b) were proved.
Conclusion: The penalties were held to be unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned penalty order was modified by deleting the penalties.
Ratio Decidendi: Penalty provisions of a confiscatory nature must be strictly construed, and liability under Rule 209A or Section 112(b) cannot be sustained unless it is proved that the person dealt with the goods and had the requisite knowledge or involvement.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
