https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278935 The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case back to the original authority, setting aside the penalty imposed on the respondent. Despite the Commissioner's lack of explicit reasoning for the remand under Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, the penalty was reduced from &8377; 50,000 to &8377; 10,000 due to the respondent's limited role as a loader in smuggling activities. The respondent, found actively participating in smuggling by aiding in shifting foreign goods, was held liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The Revision Application led to a decrease in the penalty imposed on the respondent. en-us Fri, 23 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Feb 2019 23:53:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278935 The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case back to the original authority, setting aside the penalty imposed on the respondent. Despite the Commissioner's lack of explicit reasoning for the remand under Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, the penalty was reduced from &8377; 50,000 to &8377; 10,000 due to the respondent's limited role as a loader in smuggling activities. The respondent, found actively participating in smuggling by aiding in shifting foreign goods, was held liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The Revision Application led to a decrease in the penalty imposed on the respondent. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 23 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278935