<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (11) TMI 70 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1217</link>
    <description>Departmental penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act cannot be sustained where it rests on the same statements and documentary evidence that a criminal court found insufficient even to establish a prima facie case at discharge. Although criminal prosecution and departmental adjudication are distinct, the penalty fails when identical allegations and material have been rejected in criminal proceedings. The impugned penalty order was set aside and the appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40629" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 70 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1217</link>
      <description>Departmental penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act cannot be sustained where it rests on the same statements and documentary evidence that a criminal court found insufficient even to establish a prima facie case at discharge. Although criminal prosecution and departmental adjudication are distinct, the penalty fails when identical allegations and material have been rejected in criminal proceedings. The impugned penalty order was set aside and the appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1217</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>