<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Customs penalties overturned due to denial of cross-examination, inadmissible evidence, and lack of mala fide intent.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83661</link>
    <description>Imposition of penalties on the appellants u/ss 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority failed to consider the appellants&#039; request for cross-examination of witnesses, violating the principles of natural justice. The statements relied upon were inadmissible as evidence u/s 138B, requiring examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Furthermore, the electronic documents lacked the requisite certificate u/s 138C, rendering them inadmissible. Crucially, no mala fide act or omission was established to warrant penalties u/ss 112(a) and 114AA. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order upholding the penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2024 08:44:22 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2024 08:44:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=780705" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Customs penalties overturned due to denial of cross-examination, inadmissible evidence, and lack of mala fide intent.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83661</link>
      <description>Imposition of penalties on the appellants u/ss 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority failed to consider the appellants&#039; request for cross-examination of witnesses, violating the principles of natural justice. The statements relied upon were inadmissible as evidence u/s 138B, requiring examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Furthermore, the electronic documents lacked the requisite certificate u/s 138C, rendering them inadmissible. Crucially, no mala fide act or omission was established to warrant penalties u/ss 112(a) and 114AA. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order upholding the penalties.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2024 08:44:22 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83661</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>