<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2000 (8) TMI 818 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99128</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained unless there is evidence connecting the person with the imported goods. Where the record contains no material linking the appellant to the imported consignment, and the finding of a fictitious firm rests only on assumption, the penalty is unsupportable. On that basis, the impugned penalty was set aside and the appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:38:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136185" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 818 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99128</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained unless there is evidence connecting the person with the imported goods. Where the record contains no material linking the appellant to the imported consignment, and the finding of a fictitious firm rests only on assumption, the penalty is unsupportable. On that basis, the impugned penalty was set aside and the appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99128</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>