Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of CESTAT held that the customs broker was not liable for penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, as there was no direct evidence demonstrating intentional duty evasion. The appellant correctly advised on tariff classification, did not file manipulated documents, and any procedural failures were regulatory matters under Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018. The tribunal found no justification for imposing penalties in the absence of proven knowledge or intentional misconduct, thus allowing the appeal and setting aside the original order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
