https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783034 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act. It held that the penalty was based solely on statements of the appellant and a co-noticee recorded under section 108, which were inadmissible as the mandatory procedure under section 138B had not been followed. No incriminating goods were recovered from the appellant; only nineteen one-rupee notes were found, and thus the condition that goods be liable to confiscation under section 111 was not satisfied. CESTAT also noted that the co-noticee's penalty under section 112(b)(i) had already been quashed in a connected appeal. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Dec 2025 08:41:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783034 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act. It held that the penalty was based solely on statements of the appellant and a co-noticee recorded under section 108, which were inadmissible as the mandatory procedure under section 138B had not been followed. No incriminating goods were recovered from the appellant; only nineteen one-rupee notes were found, and thus the condition that goods be liable to confiscation under section 111 was not satisfied. CESTAT also noted that the co-noticee's penalty under section 112(b)(i) had already been quashed in a connected appeal. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783034