https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344862 The Tribunal held that HCL was liable for duty due to goods being in unlicensed premises for a specific period but limited the duty liability to that period. They upheld the confiscation order with redemption on payment of fine and penalty, and imposed interest on the duty liabilities. Regarding the demand for customs duty for goods beyond the warehousing period, the Tribunal ruled in favor of HCL, citing a CBEC Circular that allowed automatic extension of the warehousing period for capital goods. The demand for duty and confiscation for goods beyond the warehousing period was set aside. en-us Wed, 21 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jan 2018 11:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344862 The Tribunal held that HCL was liable for duty due to goods being in unlicensed premises for a specific period but limited the duty liability to that period. They upheld the confiscation order with redemption on payment of fine and penalty, and imposed interest on the duty liabilities. Regarding the demand for customs duty for goods beyond the warehousing period, the Tribunal ruled in favor of HCL, citing a CBEC Circular that allowed automatic extension of the warehousing period for capital goods. The demand for duty and confiscation for goods beyond the warehousing period was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 21 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344862