<?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>2024 (12) TMI 683 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763103</link>
    <description>The CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal in part regarding penalties imposed on a customs broker for mis-declaration of export goods. The tribunal reduced the penalty under Section 114(i) from the original amount to Rs. 10,00,000/-, noting that while the appellant abetted clearance of mis-declared goods, the penalty was excessive considering departmental officers&#039; acts were deemed innocent negligence. The penalty under Section 114AA was completely set aside as the appellant merely filed shipping bills based on documents provided by exporters and did not forge any documents himself. The tribunal held that Section 114AA requires specific ingredients to be present for invocation, which were absent in this case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2024 07:23:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=782481" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 683 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763103</link>
      <description>The CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal in part regarding penalties imposed on a customs broker for mis-declaration of export goods. The tribunal reduced the penalty under Section 114(i) from the original amount to Rs. 10,00,000/-, noting that while the appellant abetted clearance of mis-declared goods, the penalty was excessive considering departmental officers&#039; acts were deemed innocent negligence. The penalty under Section 114AA was completely set aside as the appellant merely filed shipping bills based on documents provided by exporters and did not forge any documents himself. The tribunal held that Section 114AA requires specific ingredients to be present for invocation, which were absent in this case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763103</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>