https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253252 Penalty cannot be sustained against a person who was not specifically put to notice in the show cause notice, because the basic requirement of notice and opportunity was not met; that penalty was set aside. Duty demands against the main appellant were upheld because the record showed admitted diversion of duty-free inputs into the domestic market, paper transactions to conceal clearances, and detailed findings of clandestine diversion and suppression; the challenge based on defective invocation of recovery provisions failed. Penalty on the authorised signatory was also upheld, as the findings showed active involvement in diversion and in preparing invoices and records for the unlawful clearances. en-us Tue, 21 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Apr 2018 15:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253252 Penalty cannot be sustained against a person who was not specifically put to notice in the show cause notice, because the basic requirement of notice and opportunity was not met; that penalty was set aside. Duty demands against the main appellant were upheld because the record showed admitted diversion of duty-free inputs into the domestic market, paper transactions to conceal clearances, and detailed findings of clandestine diversion and suppression; the challenge based on defective invocation of recovery provisions failed. Penalty on the authorised signatory was also upheld, as the findings showed active involvement in diversion and in preparing invoices and records for the unlawful clearances. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 21 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253252