Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The HC affirmed that the levy of penalty under s.114, Customs Act, 1962 was properly sustained by the adjudicating authority and CESTAT. Although the criminal acquittal of the appellants relied on the same evidence, the adjudicative bodies permissibly applied the civil preponderance of probabilities and found appellants abetted the manufacture and export of narcotic drugs by executing deliveries at the instructions of the principal instigator and accompanying co-noticees. The CESTAT did not exceed its jurisdiction in declining to treat the criminal judgment as determinative of the quasi-judicial proceedings. Both contested questions were answered for the Revenue and the departmental appeal was dismissed.