https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209514 The Tribunal allowed the appeal against a penalty of Rs. 1.00 Lakh imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appellant, alleged to be the mastermind behind claimed seized goods, contested the penalty, arguing no violation of Section 112. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence linking the appellant to acts warranting the penalty, setting aside the penalty order. The case emphasized the necessity of substantial proof and direct involvement in wrongful actions to justify penalties under the Customs Act. en-us Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jul 2013 16:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209514 The Tribunal allowed the appeal against a penalty of Rs. 1.00 Lakh imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appellant, alleged to be the mastermind behind claimed seized goods, contested the penalty, arguing no violation of Section 112. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence linking the appellant to acts warranting the penalty, setting aside the penalty order. The case emphasized the necessity of substantial proof and direct involvement in wrongful actions to justify penalties under the Customs Act. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209514