https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757652 CESTAT Allahabad held that customs officers lacked proper authority to seize goods under SEZ Act violations. The tribunal found that Section 110 of Customs Act was not a notified offence under SEZ Act per Notification S.O. 2665(E) dated 05.08.2016, making the seizure legally unsustainable. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to establish how appellant violated Customs Act provisions. Vehicle confiscation under Section 115(2) was unwarranted as owners had no knowledge of unauthorized goods transportation. Confiscation of goods, seizure of vehicles, and penalty were set aside. Appeals allowed. en-us Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Aug 2024 08:38:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757652 CESTAT Allahabad held that customs officers lacked proper authority to seize goods under SEZ Act violations. The tribunal found that Section 110 of Customs Act was not a notified offence under SEZ Act per Notification S.O. 2665(E) dated 05.08.2016, making the seizure legally unsustainable. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to establish how appellant violated Customs Act provisions. Vehicle confiscation under Section 115(2) was unwarranted as owners had no knowledge of unauthorized goods transportation. Confiscation of goods, seizure of vehicles, and penalty were set aside. Appeals allowed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757652