https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126042 The Tribunal upheld the decision requiring the appellants to make a pre-deposit of 12% due to diversion of duty-free goods into the domestic market, despite jurisdictional arguments. The Tribunal emphasized the need for evidence and financial assessment under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, balancing the interests of the appellants and revenue protection. The modification application was rejected, but additional time for compliance was granted to address undue hardship concerns, ensuring fairness in the proceedings within the Kandla Special Economic Zone. en-us Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:29:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126042 The Tribunal upheld the decision requiring the appellants to make a pre-deposit of 12% due to diversion of duty-free goods into the domestic market, despite jurisdictional arguments. The Tribunal emphasized the need for evidence and financial assessment under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, balancing the interests of the appellants and revenue protection. The modification application was rejected, but additional time for compliance was granted to address undue hardship concerns, ensuring fairness in the proceedings within the Kandla Special Economic Zone. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126042