<?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>2024 (4) TMI 385 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751204</link>
    <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal against confiscation of goods and recovery of customs duty. Revenue alleged clandestine removal of bunkers, claiming duty-free furnace oil imported under warehouse procedure was diverted instead of being supplied to foreign vessels. The tribunal found that appellants produced documentary evidence including shipping bills, acknowledgments by vessel masters, and customs officers&#039; endorsements confirming bunker supplies to foreign vessels. Revenue failed to provide cogent evidence of actual diversion. Despite EGM discrepancies, payment receipts and official customs clearance records supported legitimate supply to foreign vessels. Penalties on co-appellants were also set aside due to lack of evidence proving diversion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2025 14:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=749656" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 385 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751204</link>
      <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal against confiscation of goods and recovery of customs duty. Revenue alleged clandestine removal of bunkers, claiming duty-free furnace oil imported under warehouse procedure was diverted instead of being supplied to foreign vessels. The tribunal found that appellants produced documentary evidence including shipping bills, acknowledgments by vessel masters, and customs officers&#039; endorsements confirming bunker supplies to foreign vessels. Revenue failed to provide cogent evidence of actual diversion. Despite EGM discrepancies, payment receipts and official customs clearance records supported legitimate supply to foreign vessels. Penalties on co-appellants were also set aside due to lack of evidence proving diversion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751204</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>