https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334902 The Tribunal set aside the order imposing redemption fine and penalty on the appellant, ruling that the seized goods were not liable for confiscation. Lack of concrete evidence of clandestine clearance and the intended lawful clearance to another entity for export led to the decision. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of corroborative evidence and intent in customs cases, highlighting the importance of a strong evidentiary basis for punitive actions in customs and excise matters. en-us Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:37:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334902 The Tribunal set aside the order imposing redemption fine and penalty on the appellant, ruling that the seized goods were not liable for confiscation. Lack of concrete evidence of clandestine clearance and the intended lawful clearance to another entity for export led to the decision. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of corroborative evidence and intent in customs cases, highlighting the importance of a strong evidentiary basis for punitive actions in customs and excise matters. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334902