https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777713 CESTAT held that penalty under s.112(b) was unsustainable for appellant no.1 due to absence of direct evidence and incomplete cross-examination of investigating witnesses, and set aside the penalty. For appellant no.2, failure to allow cross-examination of panch witnesses and lack of clear evidence of possession rendered the original penalty excessive; the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs.75,00,000 to Rs.10,00,000. The impugned order was modified and the appeals were disposed of. en-us Tue, 02 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Sep 2025 08:40:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777713 CESTAT held that penalty under s.112(b) was unsustainable for appellant no.1 due to absence of direct evidence and incomplete cross-examination of investigating witnesses, and set aside the penalty. For appellant no.2, failure to allow cross-examination of panch witnesses and lack of clear evidence of possession rendered the original penalty excessive; the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs.75,00,000 to Rs.10,00,000. The impugned order was modified and the appeals were disposed of. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 02 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777713