https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121979 The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the appellants for clandestine removal of goods, citing mens rea and a Supreme Court precedent. However, the redemption fine was set aside as the goods were not available for redemption. The demand for interest on duty was rejected based on the timeline of payment. The penalty on the Managing Director was overturned due to lack of evidence establishing his personal involvement. The judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, offers a detailed analysis of penalty imposition, redemption fine, interest on duty, and Managing Director's liability. en-us Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Aug 2012 16:47:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121979 The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the appellants for clandestine removal of goods, citing mens rea and a Supreme Court precedent. However, the redemption fine was set aside as the goods were not available for redemption. The demand for interest on duty was rejected based on the timeline of payment. The penalty on the Managing Director was overturned due to lack of evidence establishing his personal involvement. The judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, offers a detailed analysis of penalty imposition, redemption fine, interest on duty, and Managing Director's liability. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121979