https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174038 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the Collector to conduct a fresh adjudication considering the principles of natural justice and expediting the proceedings. The appellants' argument that mis-declaration required positive evidence of mens rea and that Section 111(m) did not apply to their case was not upheld. The Tribunal emphasized the seriousness of under-invoicing as an economic offense and rejected the appellants' contentions regarding the burden of proof in penalty proceedings. The case was remanded for re-adjudication with considerations for procedural fairness. en-us Mon, 29 Dec 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:56:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174038 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the Collector to conduct a fresh adjudication considering the principles of natural justice and expediting the proceedings. The appellants' argument that mis-declaration required positive evidence of mens rea and that Section 111(m) did not apply to their case was not upheld. The Tribunal emphasized the seriousness of under-invoicing as an economic offense and rejected the appellants' contentions regarding the burden of proof in penalty proceedings. The case was remanded for re-adjudication with considerations for procedural fairness. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 29 Dec 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174038