https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791915 CESTAT New Delhi held that a statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could not be relied on without compliance with section 138B, so it was not admissible as reliable evidence against the appellant. It further held that penalty under section 112(b) could not stand on third-party ledger entries and computer print-outs alone, because no incriminating material was recovered from the appellant, no independent corroboration supported the alleged dealings, and the required proof of conscious dealing with goods liable to confiscation, together with knowledge or belief of that liability, was absent. The penalty order was therefore unsustainable and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2026 08:31:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791915 CESTAT New Delhi held that a statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could not be relied on without compliance with section 138B, so it was not admissible as reliable evidence against the appellant. It further held that penalty under section 112(b) could not stand on third-party ledger entries and computer print-outs alone, because no incriminating material was recovered from the appellant, no independent corroboration supported the alleged dealings, and the required proof of conscious dealing with goods liable to confiscation, together with knowledge or belief of that liability, was absent. The penalty order was therefore unsustainable and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791915