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 Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the importer (P) never received the consignment under the relevant Bill of Entry and was not responsible for its loss. Relying on the Short Landing Certificate and joint survey reports, HC held that the goods were lost/unavailable prior to clearance for home consumption and that the case squarely attracted Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. Customs duty collected in anticipation of clearance, without delivery of goods or grant of clearance by the proper officer, could not be retained and assumed the character of a refundable deposit. HC directed R1, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund), to refund Rs. 35,37,358/- with 9% interest from the date of payment within four weeks. Petition allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
