https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366465 The court held that the doctrine of Caveat Emptor does not absolve victims of fraud under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. It ordered a full investigation into the negligence of officials involved in fraud cases. Regarding the invocation of the extended period under Section 28(1) without specific accusations, the court relied on precedent to set aside penalties imposed. Relief was granted to the appellants based on consistency with previous decisions. The judgment emphasized the importance of applying legal principles uniformly in similar cases. en-us Thu, 16 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Nov 2019 14:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366465 The court held that the doctrine of Caveat Emptor does not absolve victims of fraud under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. It ordered a full investigation into the negligence of officials involved in fraud cases. Regarding the invocation of the extended period under Section 28(1) without specific accusations, the court relied on precedent to set aside penalties imposed. Relief was granted to the appellants based on consistency with previous decisions. The judgment emphasized the importance of applying legal principles uniformly in similar cases. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 16 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366465