https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396022 The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal (C/632/2008) against dropping proceedings against the CHA, finding no evidence of negligence. The CHA's appeal (C/22876/2014) challenging the refusal to renew their license was allowed, as the penalty did not constitute misconduct, and the refusal was deemed legally untenable. The Tribunal directed the renewal of the CHA's license, emphasizing the lack of evidence of misconduct or negligence. en-us Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:30:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396022 The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal (C/632/2008) against dropping proceedings against the CHA, finding no evidence of negligence. The CHA's appeal (C/22876/2014) challenging the refusal to renew their license was allowed, as the penalty did not constitute misconduct, and the refusal was deemed legally untenable. The Tribunal directed the renewal of the CHA's license, emphasizing the lack of evidence of misconduct or negligence. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396022