https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96053 Failure to discharge obligations under Regulation 17(9) raised two legal issues: whether the penalty imposed was excessive and whether security deposit could be forfeited. The Tribunal held that Regulations 8(1) and 20 fix the statutory penalty ceiling at Rs.50,000, so imposing the maximum permitted cannot be treated as disproportionate; and the CBLR does not authorize forfeiture of the security deposit. Applying those statutory prescriptions, the impugned order imposing the maximum permissible penalty and not forfeiting the deposit was found valid, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT en-us Thu, 15 Jan 2026 11:38:15 +0530 Thu, 15 Jan 2026 11:38:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96053 Failure to discharge obligations under Regulation 17(9) raised two legal issues: whether the penalty imposed was excessive and whether security deposit could be forfeited. The Tribunal held that Regulations 8(1) and 20 fix the statutory penalty ceiling at Rs.50,000, so imposing the maximum permitted cannot be treated as disproportionate; and the CBLR does not authorize forfeiture of the security deposit. Applying those statutory prescriptions, the impugned order imposing the maximum permissible penalty and not forfeiting the deposit was found valid, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT Highlights Customs Thu, 15 Jan 2026 11:38:15 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96053