https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181088 The appeals were allowed as penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules were found inapplicable. The discrepancies in conducting personal hearings by different Commissioners were deemed against natural justice, leading to a remand for fresh adjudication. While one individual was actively involved in fraudulent activities, the appellants, not handling goods or aware of forged licenses, were not penalized. The decision was based on similarities with a prior case where penalties were not imposed, emphasizing the importance of factual comparisons in determining penalty applicability. en-us Wed, 03 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 May 2016 12:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181088 The appeals were allowed as penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules were found inapplicable. The discrepancies in conducting personal hearings by different Commissioners were deemed against natural justice, leading to a remand for fresh adjudication. While one individual was actively involved in fraudulent activities, the appellants, not handling goods or aware of forged licenses, were not penalized. The decision was based on similarities with a prior case where penalties were not imposed, emphasizing the importance of factual comparisons in determining penalty applicability. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181088