https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781894 CESTAT Kolkata set aside the impugned order enhancing redemption fine and penalty on imported goods for alleged non-compliance with EPR requirements. The appellant had initially lacked EPR Authorization but promptly applied, sought provisional release (wrongly denied), and subsequently obtained EPR Authorization covering the relevant period. The Tribunal held that, in these circumstances, the goods were not liable to confiscation and no redemption fine or penalty was warranted. It further found that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded jurisdiction by enhancing fine and penalty without notice or hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order quashed. en-us Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Nov 2025 07:36:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781894 CESTAT Kolkata set aside the impugned order enhancing redemption fine and penalty on imported goods for alleged non-compliance with EPR requirements. The appellant had initially lacked EPR Authorization but promptly applied, sought provisional release (wrongly denied), and subsequently obtained EPR Authorization covering the relevant period. The Tribunal held that, in these circumstances, the goods were not liable to confiscation and no redemption fine or penalty was warranted. It further found that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded jurisdiction by enhancing fine and penalty without notice or hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order quashed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781894