Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Kerala HC dismisses import duty challenge on Clear Float Glass; orders reassessment by appellate authority without writ findings.</h1> The HC of Kerala dismissed the appellant's challenge regarding the import duty on 'Clear Float Glass,' upholding the initial order demanding differential ... Recovery of short levied duty alongwith interest - period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (9) of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The question whether Ext.P10 is barred by limitation or not is a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition. Therefore, the remedy open to the appellant is to prefer a statutory appeal and take the limitation plea before the appellate authority. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the impugned judgment, the Learned Single Judge had already entered a finding regarding limitation on merits against the appellant, and as such, the appellate authority cannot take a different stand. Since the Learned Single Judge has decided to relegate the appellant to the appellate remedy, a finding on the question of limitation ought not to have been entered into as rightly submitted by the Learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellate authority is directed to consider the appeal on merits untrammeled by the findings in the impugned judgment. The time during which the appellant has been prosecuting the writ petition shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation. Appeal disposed off. The High Court of Kerala heard a writ appeal challenging a judgment regarding the import of 'Clear Float Glass' by a company engaged in trading of construction materials. The appellant challenged the order demanding differential duty and interest, arguing that the show cause notice was issued by an incompetent authority and the order was beyond the limitation period. The court found against the appellant on both grounds but directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits without being bound by the findings of the writ judgment. The writ appeal was disposed of with this modification.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
