https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178643 Initiation of major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules was upheld where the earlier Rule 16 minor penalty proceedings had already been closed. The Court found that the later memorandum also covered additional bills of entry and was not confined to the same subject matter as the earlier action. On that factual basis, there were no parallel proceedings for the same misconduct, so the principle against double jeopardy did not apply. The precedent relied on by the employee was found inapplicable on the facts, and the challenge to the second memorandum failed. en-us Tue, 05 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:34:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178643 Initiation of major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules was upheld where the earlier Rule 16 minor penalty proceedings had already been closed. The Court found that the later memorandum also covered additional bills of entry and was not confined to the same subject matter as the earlier action. On that factual basis, there were no parallel proceedings for the same misconduct, so the principle against double jeopardy did not apply. The precedent relied on by the employee was found inapplicable on the facts, and the challenge to the second memorandum failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178643