https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236141 Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was treated as not prima facie sustainable where the appellants had not dealt with the offending goods, and waiver was allowed on that basis. By contrast, false export declarations in shipping bills, supported by the admitted use of market-purchased goods as if they were duty-free manufactured goods, were treated as prima facie attracting Section 114 of the Customs Act and the confiscatory consequence under Section 113(i), so complete waiver was declined and 50% pre-deposit was directed for that penalty. en-us Fri, 03 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236141 Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was treated as not prima facie sustainable where the appellants had not dealt with the offending goods, and waiver was allowed on that basis. By contrast, false export declarations in shipping bills, supported by the admitted use of market-purchased goods as if they were duty-free manufactured goods, were treated as prima facie attracting Section 114 of the Customs Act and the confiscatory consequence under Section 113(i), so complete waiver was declined and 50% pre-deposit was directed for that penalty. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 03 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236141