https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359340 Goods cleared under a disputed third-party brand name without payment of duty were treated as dutiable and liable to confiscation, because the claim of export was not supported by compliance with the prescribed export procedure, such as export under bond or duty payment followed by rebate. However, the redemption fine and penalty were found excessive because a substantial part of the seized goods consisted of non-dutiable agricultural implements and the duty-related value was much lower than the total seizure value. The confiscation was upheld, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced to reflect proportionality. en-us Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Apr 2018 07:08:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359340 Goods cleared under a disputed third-party brand name without payment of duty were treated as dutiable and liable to confiscation, because the claim of export was not supported by compliance with the prescribed export procedure, such as export under bond or duty payment followed by rebate. However, the redemption fine and penalty were found excessive because a substantial part of the seized goods consisted of non-dutiable agricultural implements and the duty-related value was much lower than the total seizure value. The confiscation was upheld, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced to reflect proportionality. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359340