https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89326 CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the revocation of authorized carrier registration and imposed penalties. The tribunal found that the appellant did not violate Regulation 10(1)(l) and 10(1)(m) of SCMTR, 2018. The adjudicating authority's findings were deemed incorrect, as the appellant appeared to have acted in compliance with the regulatory framework. The tribunal concluded that the detention periods and additional delays did not constitute substantive regulatory violations warranting punitive action against the authorized carrier, thus restoring the carrier's registration status. en-us Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:21:34 +0530 Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:21:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89326 CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the revocation of authorized carrier registration and imposed penalties. The tribunal found that the appellant did not violate Regulation 10(1)(l) and 10(1)(m) of SCMTR, 2018. The adjudicating authority's findings were deemed incorrect, as the appellant appeared to have acted in compliance with the regulatory framework. The tribunal concluded that the detention periods and additional delays did not constitute substantive regulatory violations warranting punitive action against the authorized carrier, thus restoring the carrier's registration status. Highlights Customs Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:21:34 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89326