https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390694 The tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the cancellation of the bond by the Assistant Commissioner was beyond his jurisdiction. It emphasized that the determination of the admissibility of exemption should be made by the customs authorities at the port of import. The tribunal found the proceedings to be futile for both parties, as any order passed would not impact future or past imports. It highlighted the need for separate proceedings to address admissibility of exemption or end-use violations independent of the bond execution process. en-us Mon, 22 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jan 2020 18:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390694 The tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the cancellation of the bond by the Assistant Commissioner was beyond his jurisdiction. It emphasized that the determination of the admissibility of exemption should be made by the customs authorities at the port of import. The tribunal found the proceedings to be futile for both parties, as any order passed would not impact future or past imports. It highlighted the need for separate proceedings to address admissibility of exemption or end-use violations independent of the bond execution process. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 22 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390694