https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778136 CESTAT (Ahmedabad) - AT allowed the appeal, holding that enhancement of penalty on the employee from Rs.5,00,000 to Rs.20,00,000 under s.112(a) was unjustified where the CHA firm employer had earlier been exonerated of penalty on the same facts. The Tribunal applied the principle that an employee should not be penalized when the employer is not found guilty, as affirmed by the SC, and directed that the Commissioner must provide cogent reasons for any enhancement. The impugned order sustaining the increased penalty was set aside. en-us Thu, 14 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Sep 2025 08:29:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778136 CESTAT (Ahmedabad) - AT allowed the appeal, holding that enhancement of penalty on the employee from Rs.5,00,000 to Rs.20,00,000 under s.112(a) was unjustified where the CHA firm employer had earlier been exonerated of penalty on the same facts. The Tribunal applied the principle that an employee should not be penalized when the employer is not found guilty, as affirmed by the SC, and directed that the Commissioner must provide cogent reasons for any enhancement. The impugned order sustaining the increased penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 14 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778136