https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361409 Use of a third-party brand name rendered the goods liable to confiscation, but the monetary consequences were found excessive because part of the seized goods consisted of agricultural implements on which no duty was payable. After excluding that portion and allowing abatement, the duty-related value was lower than the value used to fix the redemption fine and penalty. The redemption fine and penalty were therefore reduced. en-us Wed, 23 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jun 2018 07:25:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361409 Use of a third-party brand name rendered the goods liable to confiscation, but the monetary consequences were found excessive because part of the seized goods consisted of agricultural implements on which no duty was payable. After excluding that portion and allowing abatement, the duty-related value was lower than the value used to fix the redemption fine and penalty. The redemption fine and penalty were therefore reduced. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361409