https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762160 Penalty under customs and excise law requires strict proof of the statutory ingredients, including knowing involvement in prohibited conduct. A licence broker who merely facilitated purchase and sale of advance licences and AROs could not be penalised under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 or Rule 209A/Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules unless there was clear evidence that he knew the licences were fake or that he knowingly dealt with excisable goods liable to confiscation. Suspicion from surrounding circumstances was insufficient. On the material recorded, the Tribunal found no clinching proof of such knowledge or direct participation. en-us Fri, 22 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Nov 2024 11:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762160 Penalty under customs and excise law requires strict proof of the statutory ingredients, including knowing involvement in prohibited conduct. A licence broker who merely facilitated purchase and sale of advance licences and AROs could not be penalised under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 or Rule 209A/Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules unless there was clear evidence that he knew the licences were fake or that he knowingly dealt with excisable goods liable to confiscation. Suspicion from surrounding circumstances was insufficient. On the material recorded, the Tribunal found no clinching proof of such knowledge or direct participation. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 22 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762160