Functional comparability governs selection of support-service and IT-enabled service comparables, with verification required for unresolved data and m...
Bank account freezing requires statutory authority; anti-money-laundering compliance and KYC monitoring do not permit unilateral indefinite restrictio...
The HC dismissed the Petitioner's challenge to the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) order insofar as merits before the Commissioner (Appeals) are concerned, noting the forfeiture of the EMD was effected by the Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner (Appeals) refused jurisdiction treating the dispute as contractual. In the exercise of discretion, the HC permitted the Petitioner to institute an appeal before CESTAT contesting both the refund order dated 30 April 2024 and the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 7 July 2025; the appeal must be filed within two weeks and both orders annexed. CESTAT is directed to admit and adjudicate the appeal on merits, including whether the EMD forfeiture complied with law. Petition disposed.
The HC dismissed the Petitioner's challenge to the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) order insofar as merits before the Commissioner (Appeals) are concerned, noting the forfeiture of the EMD was effected by the Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner (Appeals) refused jurisdiction treating the dispute as contractual. In the exercise of discretion, the HC permitted the Petitioner to institute an appeal before CESTAT contesting both the refund order dated 30 April 2024 and the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 7 July 2025; the appeal must be filed within two weeks and both orders annexed. CESTAT is directed to admit and adjudicate the appeal on merits, including whether the EMD forfeiture complied with law. Petition disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
