https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349366 The court allowed all five appeals, quashing the impugned orders dated 14th October 1994 and 13th December 2004. The judgment emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence and proof in penalty adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, rejecting reliance on conjecture and uncorroborated testimonies. Additionally, the court criticized the inappropriate language used in the CESTAT order, highlighting the importance of sobriety and adherence to legal principles in judicial proceedings. en-us Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349366 The court allowed all five appeals, quashing the impugned orders dated 14th October 1994 and 13th December 2004. The judgment emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence and proof in penalty adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, rejecting reliance on conjecture and uncorroborated testimonies. Additionally, the court criticized the inappropriate language used in the CESTAT order, highlighting the importance of sobriety and adherence to legal principles in judicial proceedings. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349366