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 allowed appellant's appeal against penalties imposed under Sections 112(a)(i), 112(b)(i), and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. Department alleged appellant operated as syndicate facilitating clearance of mis-declared/undervalued goods and allowed co-conspirator use of office premises and computer. Tribunal held no evidence substantiated allegations that appellant facilitated clearance of mis-declared goods or was connected with subject goods. Allowing usage of office premises and computer cannot constitute connivance in alleged offence. Investigation failed to establish conditions for invoking penalty provisions under Sections 112 and 114AA. Adjudicating authority's finding that appellant provided assistance in clearance of contraband goods was speculative without evidentiary support. Penalties set aside as unsustainable.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
