https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449990 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed appeals against penalty and confiscation orders imposed for repair work conducted at DTA location instead of designated EOU location, violating TSA bond conditions. The tribunal held that show cause notices under Section 54 and Section 111(J) of Customs Act were not maintainable as goods were not imported from customs station for transshipment nor removed from customs area without permission. The court found that liability under bond rests with the executing party, not recipients. Since service tax was discharged and accepted by department, and proper legal provisions under Finance Act 1994 were not invoked, penalties were set aside with consequential relief granted. en-us Thu, 22 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Feb 2024 07:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449990 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed appeals against penalty and confiscation orders imposed for repair work conducted at DTA location instead of designated EOU location, violating TSA bond conditions. The tribunal held that show cause notices under Section 54 and Section 111(J) of Customs Act were not maintainable as goods were not imported from customs station for transshipment nor removed from customs area without permission. The court found that liability under bond rests with the executing party, not recipients. Since service tax was discharged and accepted by department, and proper legal provisions under Finance Act 1994 were not invoked, penalties were set aside with consequential relief granted. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 22 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449990