https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754983 The CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order imposing penalties and confiscation. The appellant warehouse licensee had stored goods in tank no. 103 before obtaining formal inclusion permission, though permission was granted shortly after. The tribunal found that confiscation under section 111(h) was not warranted as goods remained within customs area and supervisory control. The Commissioner exceeded authority in imposing penalties under sections 112 and 117, failing to properly assess whether tanks were within designated customs area and incorrectly determining maximum permissible assessable value without proper valuation exercise under section 2(41). en-us Fri, 28 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:16:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754983 The CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order imposing penalties and confiscation. The appellant warehouse licensee had stored goods in tank no. 103 before obtaining formal inclusion permission, though permission was granted shortly after. The tribunal found that confiscation under section 111(h) was not warranted as goods remained within customs area and supervisory control. The Commissioner exceeded authority in imposing penalties under sections 112 and 117, failing to properly assess whether tanks were within designated customs area and incorrectly determining maximum permissible assessable value without proper valuation exercise under section 2(41). Case-Laws Customs Fri, 28 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754983