<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (9) TMI 397 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427452</link>
    <description>Import licence requirements under the Gas Cylinders Rules, 2016 depended on whether the gas to be filled in the empty cans was &quot;compressed gas&quot; within the Rules; on the material discussed, that technical question was not properly examined, and the findings treating the cans as prohibited were unsupported. Because the lower authorities did not deal with the appellant&#039;s technical defence, the adjudication was regarded as non-speaking and the orders of absolute confiscation and penalty could not be sustained. The impugned orders were therefore set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellant and considering its submissions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2022 07:04:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=690199" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 397 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427452</link>
      <description>Import licence requirements under the Gas Cylinders Rules, 2016 depended on whether the gas to be filled in the empty cans was &quot;compressed gas&quot; within the Rules; on the material discussed, that technical question was not properly examined, and the findings treating the cans as prohibited were unsupported. Because the lower authorities did not deal with the appellant&#039;s technical defence, the adjudication was regarded as non-speaking and the orders of absolute confiscation and penalty could not be sustained. The impugned orders were therefore set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellant and considering its submissions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>