https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780847 CESTAT AHMEDABAD - AT allowed the appeal, holding that the Quality Control Order requiring BIS marking came into force after the shipment date (27.01.2017), so the importer was not obligated to affix the BIS mark. The Tribunal found the revenue's contention of prior knowledge unpersuasive, relied on precedent establishing the order's effective date as 07.02.2017, and set aside the impugned Commissioner (Appeals) order. Confiscation and penalty under section 112(a) were not sustained. en-us Thu, 06 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Nov 2025 08:37:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780847 CESTAT AHMEDABAD - AT allowed the appeal, holding that the Quality Control Order requiring BIS marking came into force after the shipment date (27.01.2017), so the importer was not obligated to affix the BIS mark. The Tribunal found the revenue's contention of prior knowledge unpersuasive, relied on precedent establishing the order's effective date as 07.02.2017, and set aside the impugned Commissioner (Appeals) order. Confiscation and penalty under section 112(a) were not sustained. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 06 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780847