https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782581 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal of the exporter and set aside the impugned order of confiscation, redemption fine and penalties. The Tribunal held that the EPCG licence holder, a separate entity, had contravened licence conditions by not disclosing the supporting manufacturer, but no appeal was filed by that entity against duty demand and penalties. The appellant had exported goods under proper shipping bills, realised export proceeds, and there was no allegation of non-export or non-realisation. As the goods had already been exported and were not physically available, confiscation under Section 113(i) and penalties under Sections 114(iii), 114AA and 117 were unsustainable. en-us Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Dec 2025 08:35:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782581 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal of the exporter and set aside the impugned order of confiscation, redemption fine and penalties. The Tribunal held that the EPCG licence holder, a separate entity, had contravened licence conditions by not disclosing the supporting manufacturer, but no appeal was filed by that entity against duty demand and penalties. The appellant had exported goods under proper shipping bills, realised export proceeds, and there was no allegation of non-export or non-realisation. As the goods had already been exported and were not physically available, confiscation under Section 113(i) and penalties under Sections 114(iii), 114AA and 117 were unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782581