<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Confiscation of 449 illicit gas cylinders and reduced redemption fine under Customs Act Ss.111,112 and Gas Cylinder Rules</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94590</link>
    <description>CESTAT upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and Commr (A) that 449 gas cylinders illicitly removed from ship-breaking yards, contrary to Gas Cylinder Rules, 2016 and related regulations, were liable to confiscation under Ss. 111(d) and 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962, and that penalty on the appellant under S. 112(a) and (b) for abetment was correctly imposed. The Tribunal held that the appellant, though engaged in low-margin business, had violated the mandatory undertaking regarding destruction of cylinders and thus attracted confiscation and penalty. However, exercising discretion, CESTAT further reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 1,40,000 to Rs. 40,000. The appeal was partly allowed to this limited extent and otherwise dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2025 08:24:26 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2025 08:24:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=867832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Confiscation of 449 illicit gas cylinders and reduced redemption fine under Customs Act Ss.111,112 and Gas Cylinder Rules</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94590</link>
      <description>CESTAT upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and Commr (A) that 449 gas cylinders illicitly removed from ship-breaking yards, contrary to Gas Cylinder Rules, 2016 and related regulations, were liable to confiscation under Ss. 111(d) and 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962, and that penalty on the appellant under S. 112(a) and (b) for abetment was correctly imposed. The Tribunal held that the appellant, though engaged in low-margin business, had violated the mandatory undertaking regarding destruction of cylinders and thus attracted confiscation and penalty. However, exercising discretion, CESTAT further reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 1,40,000 to Rs. 40,000. The appeal was partly allowed to this limited extent and otherwise dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2025 08:24:26 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>