https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4685 Penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act could not be sustained merely on the basis of a notice proposing recovery of drawback under Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995. The record did not disclose a clear and specific allegation that the appellants had abetted an offence making the export goods liable to confiscation, nor that such abetment had been properly put to notice with sufficient particulars. As the appellants' role required deeper examination on evidence, a prima facie case was made out for interim relief and the balance of convenience favoured protection against recovery of the penalties pending final disposal. en-us Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4685 Penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act could not be sustained merely on the basis of a notice proposing recovery of drawback under Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995. The record did not disclose a clear and specific allegation that the appellants had abetted an offence making the export goods liable to confiscation, nor that such abetment had been properly put to notice with sufficient particulars. As the appellants' role required deeper examination on evidence, a prima facie case was made out for interim relief and the balance of convenience favoured protection against recovery of the penalties pending final disposal. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4685