1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Tribunal grants waiver of penalty due to insufficient evidence</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA granted the waiver of pre-deposit of penalty for appellant Govind Laskar and allowed the appeal for disposal. The ... Confiscation and penalty Issues:1. Waiver of pre-deposit of penalty for appellant Govind Laskar.2. Imposition of penalties and fine on the appellants under the Customs Act, 1962.3. Allegation of attempted illegal export of goods to Bangladesh.4. Evaluation of evidence and legal proof in the case.The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA involved multiple issues. Firstly, the waiver of pre-deposit of penalty for appellant Govind Laskar was sought due to the dismissal of a previous petition without communication to the party. The Tribunal granted the waiver and allowed the appeal for disposal. Secondly, the penalties and fine imposed on the appellants under the Customs Act, 1962 were challenged. Appellants were penalized for alleged illegal export of goods to Bangladesh. However, the Tribunal found insufficient legal evidence to prove the charge against the appellants. It was noted that the mere act of evading authorities did not conclusively establish illegal export. The Tribunal set aside the penalties and fine imposed on the appellants, allowing their respective appeals. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal proof in penal proceedings and the need for concrete evidence to support charges. The Tribunal emphasized that suspicion alone cannot replace legal proof in such cases. Ultimately, the impugned order was set aside, and all the appeals were allowed, providing relief to the appellants based on the evaluation of evidence and legal reasoning.