https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95835 Limitation was not attracted because the appeal was filed within three months of the date the order was actually received, and the Revenue's communication supported delayed receipt. On penalty, liability under Section 112 of the Customs Act is distinct from confiscation under Section 115, and a penalty cannot be sustained merely because no redemption fine was imposed for the truck. In the absence of any finding that the owner knew of or was involved in carriage of foreign-origin goods, the penalty was held unsustainable and was set aside. The miscellaneous application was disposed of on the footing that no delay existed. en-us Thu, 03 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:10:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95835 Limitation was not attracted because the appeal was filed within three months of the date the order was actually received, and the Revenue's communication supported delayed receipt. On penalty, liability under Section 112 of the Customs Act is distinct from confiscation under Section 115, and a penalty cannot be sustained merely because no redemption fine was imposed for the truck. In the absence of any finding that the owner knew of or was involved in carriage of foreign-origin goods, the penalty was held unsustainable and was set aside. The miscellaneous application was disposed of on the footing that no delay existed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 03 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95835