https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777295 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside penalties imposed on the appellant. The tribunal found the appellant acted as agent of the foreign supplier and was denied assessment on first check, so penalty under s.112(a) CA, 1962 for aiding/abetting duty evasion could not be sustained. It also held s.114AA CA, 1962 targets fraudulent export claims, not importation, and therefore was inapplicable. Both penalties were quashed and the appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Aug 2025 08:32:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777295 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside penalties imposed on the appellant. The tribunal found the appellant acted as agent of the foreign supplier and was denied assessment on first check, so penalty under s.112(a) CA, 1962 for aiding/abetting duty evasion could not be sustained. It also held s.114AA CA, 1962 targets fraudulent export claims, not importation, and therefore was inapplicable. Both penalties were quashed and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777295