https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268005 Penalty was upheld against the director because the record showed he was in overall control of the company and the fraudulent exports, DEPB misuse and irregular DTA-to-SEZ clearances were undertaken at his instance; the Tribunal also found that denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the penalty on the facts established. Penalty was set aside against the employee because he merely prepared export documents under instructions, had no personal gain, and no evidence showed independent culpable participation or wrongful intent. The Tribunal therefore sustained the penalties against the controlling mind of the operation but granted relief to the subordinate employee. en-us Tue, 18 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268005 Penalty was upheld against the director because the record showed he was in overall control of the company and the fraudulent exports, DEPB misuse and irregular DTA-to-SEZ clearances were undertaken at his instance; the Tribunal also found that denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the penalty on the facts established. Penalty was set aside against the employee because he merely prepared export documents under instructions, had no personal gain, and no evidence showed independent culpable participation or wrongful intent. The Tribunal therefore sustained the penalties against the controlling mind of the operation but granted relief to the subordinate employee. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 18 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268005