https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116890 A CHA licence cancellation based on alleged facilitation of excess drawback was held unsustainable because the principal fraud attributed to the export firm had not been established. The punitive action rested on claims that the CHA prepared two sets of invoices, over-invoiced shipping bills, and thereby assisted inadmissible drawback, with additional reliance on alleged breach of Regulation 14(d) and non-maintenance of the job register. The authority found that consequential liability for aiding and abetting could not stand in the absence of proof of the underlying fraudulent act. The cancellation was set aside and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:53:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116890 A CHA licence cancellation based on alleged facilitation of excess drawback was held unsustainable because the principal fraud attributed to the export firm had not been established. The punitive action rested on claims that the CHA prepared two sets of invoices, over-invoiced shipping bills, and thereby assisted inadmissible drawback, with additional reliance on alleged breach of Regulation 14(d) and non-maintenance of the job register. The authority found that consequential liability for aiding and abetting could not stand in the absence of proof of the underlying fraudulent act. The cancellation was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116890