https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771464 CESTAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 was improperly imposed on the importer. The tribunal found no evidence of misrepresentation or conditions permitting resort to section 28(4) during assessment. The differential duty was collected as bond obligation, not under section 28. Additionally, fine under section 125 for redemption of unavailable goods was deemed futile, following HC Bombay precedent affirmed by SC. The importer's appeal was allowed, penalty set aside, and Commissioner's appeal dismissed. en-us Tue, 06 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 May 2025 12:22:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771464 CESTAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 was improperly imposed on the importer. The tribunal found no evidence of misrepresentation or conditions permitting resort to section 28(4) during assessment. The differential duty was collected as bond obligation, not under section 28. Additionally, fine under section 125 for redemption of unavailable goods was deemed futile, following HC Bombay precedent affirmed by SC. The importer's appeal was allowed, penalty set aside, and Commissioner's appeal dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 06 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771464