https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760588 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The tribunal held that Notification 12/2012-Cus, prior to amendment by Notification 06/2017-Cus dated 02 February 2017, did not contain depreciation provisions under Clause (e) of Condition 40A. For imports made before the amendment, demand was set aside following precedent established in Clough Engineering case approved by SC. For post-amendment imports, while duty became payable on leftover goods, the notification prescribed depreciation rates for valuation. Finding no violation of Section 111 of Customs Act and noting the notification anticipated leftovers, the tribunal found no grounds for confiscation or penalties. Matter remanded to original adjudicating authority for fresh decision. en-us Tue, 22 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Oct 2024 08:15:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760588 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The tribunal held that Notification 12/2012-Cus, prior to amendment by Notification 06/2017-Cus dated 02 February 2017, did not contain depreciation provisions under Clause (e) of Condition 40A. For imports made before the amendment, demand was set aside following precedent established in Clough Engineering case approved by SC. For post-amendment imports, while duty became payable on leftover goods, the notification prescribed depreciation rates for valuation. Finding no violation of Section 111 of Customs Act and noting the notification anticipated leftovers, the tribunal found no grounds for confiscation or penalties. Matter remanded to original adjudicating authority for fresh decision. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 22 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760588