<?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>Penalties under Sections 114(i) and 114AA dropped due to inadmissible evidence and lack of proof</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90621</link>
    <description>The CESTAT set aside the penalties imposed under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant, allowing the appeal. The Tribunal held that the evidence derived from the seized DVD was inadmissible due to the absence of the original DVD and non-compliance with Section 138C certification requirements. Statements recorded without adherence to Section 138B procedures, including those from co-accused and retracted confessions, were deemed unreliable and inadmissible. The CDR analysis failed to establish the appellant&#039;s involvement, and allegations of pecuniary benefits lacked corroborative evidence. Consequently, the essential elements for penalty imposition under Sections 114(i) and 114AA were not satisfied, rendering the.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:22:45 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:22:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=836985" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Penalties under Sections 114(i) and 114AA dropped due to inadmissible evidence and lack of proof</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90621</link>
      <description>The CESTAT set aside the penalties imposed under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant, allowing the appeal. The Tribunal held that the evidence derived from the seized DVD was inadmissible due to the absence of the original DVD and non-compliance with Section 138C certification requirements. Statements recorded without adherence to Section 138B procedures, including those from co-accused and retracted confessions, were deemed unreliable and inadmissible. The CDR analysis failed to establish the appellant&#039;s involvement, and allegations of pecuniary benefits lacked corroborative evidence. Consequently, the essential elements for penalty imposition under Sections 114(i) and 114AA were not satisfied, rendering the.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:22:45 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90621</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>