TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the filing of a reference application or proposed appeal stayed the Tribunal's earlier order and whether the appellants were entitled to refund of the amounts collected without authority after the Tribunal had held that duty could not be demanded from the original licence holders.
Analysis: The Tribunal reiterated that duty under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be recovered from the original holders of the licence and was recoverable only from the persons who actually imported the goods. It noted that a reference application under Section 130(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 did not operate as a stay of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal also observed that the Revenue had not filed an appeal or sought rectification and that the request to keep the matter pending was unwarranted. Exercising its power under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, the Tribunal directed consequential refund.
Conclusion: The request to withhold implementation was rejected and the Commissioner was directed to refund the amounts due to the appellants.
Final Conclusion: The appellants succeeded in obtaining consequential refund relief, and the earlier Tribunal determination remained operative notwithstanding the Revenue's pending reference application.
Ratio Decidendi: A reference application or proposed further challenge does not, by itself, stay the operation of a Tribunal order, and consequential relief can be directed to enforce a concluded finding on illegality of duty recovery.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
