https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235180 The appeal was filed against the order confirming the demand of duty, interest, and penalties due to non-production of proof of export. The tribunal held that duty liability for non-delivery of goods to the SEZ rests with the merchant exporter, not the manufacturer. Relying on legal precedents, the tribunal concluded that duty liability was discharged by the manufacturer through bond transfer, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. en-us Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Aug 2013 11:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235180 The appeal was filed against the order confirming the demand of duty, interest, and penalties due to non-production of proof of export. The tribunal held that duty liability for non-delivery of goods to the SEZ rests with the merchant exporter, not the manufacturer. Relying on legal precedents, the tribunal concluded that duty liability was discharged by the manufacturer through bond transfer, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235180