<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (8) TMI 812 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796938</link>
    <description>Penalty for shortage of duty-free gold and silver requires reliable proof of deliberate diversion or intent to evade duty; a reported theft, voluntary payment of duty and interest, and absence of revenue loss do not by themselves establish penal liability. Untested statements cannot support penalty unless the statutory safeguards for their use are met, and an unverified recovery not linked to the missing goods provides no independent corroboration. Penalties on the proprietorship concern, its supervising individual, and the person alleged to have removed the goods were therefore set aside. Differential customs duty and applicable interest on the stock shortage remained payable. Separate penalty on the proprietor was impermissible because a proprietorship concern and its proprietor are not distinct legal persons.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2026 10:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=916840" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 812 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796938</link>
      <description>Penalty for shortage of duty-free gold and silver requires reliable proof of deliberate diversion or intent to evade duty; a reported theft, voluntary payment of duty and interest, and absence of revenue loss do not by themselves establish penal liability. Untested statements cannot support penalty unless the statutory safeguards for their use are met, and an unverified recovery not linked to the missing goods provides no independent corroboration. Penalties on the proprietorship concern, its supervising individual, and the person alleged to have removed the goods were therefore set aside. Differential customs duty and applicable interest on the stock shortage remained payable. Separate penalty on the proprietor was impermissible because a proprietorship concern and its proprietor are not distinct legal persons.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796938</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>