TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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 set aside the penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 as against Appellant No. 1, holding that the record contains no direct evidence linking him to the alleged smuggling and that investigative witnesses material to the Panchanama were either not present throughout the operation or were not produced for cross-examination. The tribunal also found breach of principles of natural justice with respect to Appellant No. 2 due to failure to procure Panch witnesses for cross-examination and insufficient evidence of possession of the seized gold. Consequently, the penalty on Appellant No. 2 was reduced from Rs.75,00,000 to Rs.10,00,000 and the impugned order as to penalties was otherwise modified and the appeal disposed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
