https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94926 CESTAT examined penalties imposed on the appellant, a Customs Broker, under ss. 112(a), 112(b) and proposed enhancement under s. 114A CA for allegedly aiding and abetting clearance of goods using forged DFRC licences. The Tribunal held that the department failed to establish, with cogent evidence, that the appellant had the requisite knowledge or shared common design in the fraudulent use of DFRCs; mere interactions, monetary transactions and document handling were insufficient to prove abetment or conspiracy. Findings based on assumptions and presumptions were held unsustainable. Consequently, the penalty on the appellant was set aside and the Revenue's appeal for enhancement of penalty under s. 114A was dismissed. en-us Wed, 10 Dec 2025 09:35:34 +0530 Wed, 10 Dec 2025 09:35:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94926 CESTAT examined penalties imposed on the appellant, a Customs Broker, under ss. 112(a), 112(b) and proposed enhancement under s. 114A CA for allegedly aiding and abetting clearance of goods using forged DFRC licences. The Tribunal held that the department failed to establish, with cogent evidence, that the appellant had the requisite knowledge or shared common design in the fraudulent use of DFRCs; mere interactions, monetary transactions and document handling were insufficient to prove abetment or conspiracy. Findings based on assumptions and presumptions were held unsustainable. Consequently, the penalty on the appellant was set aside and the Revenue's appeal for enhancement of penalty under s. 114A was dismissed. Highlights Customs Wed, 10 Dec 2025 09:35:34 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94926