https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361520 The appellant, M/s.A.V. Agro products limited, challenged a penalty imposed under Section 112 B of the Customs Act for misusing exemptions and diverting crude palm oil to the open market. The case involved co-noticees accused of issuing fake documents and misdirecting oil. The Settlement Commission's decision did not grant blanket immunity, imposing penalties on co-noticees without immunity from prosecution. The judgment clarified that co-noticees could not claim automatic immunity under the KVS Scheme if found to have committed separate offenses. The appeal was rejected as co-noticees' liability was assessed individually, not automatically absolved by the main appellant's immunity. en-us Tue, 05 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jun 2018 08:22:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361520 The appellant, M/s.A.V. Agro products limited, challenged a penalty imposed under Section 112 B of the Customs Act for misusing exemptions and diverting crude palm oil to the open market. The case involved co-noticees accused of issuing fake documents and misdirecting oil. The Settlement Commission's decision did not grant blanket immunity, imposing penalties on co-noticees without immunity from prosecution. The judgment clarified that co-noticees could not claim automatic immunity under the KVS Scheme if found to have committed separate offenses. The appeal was rejected as co-noticees' liability was assessed individually, not automatically absolved by the main appellant's immunity. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 05 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361520