https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78417 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that the withdrawal of the waiver of 1% revenue deposit by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs was arbitrary and not in line with Circular No. 11/01-Cus., dated 23rd February, 2001. The Court emphasized the binding nature of Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs on customs officers, limiting their discretion in demanding duty deposits. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to prescribed procedures and timelines in duty assessments, ultimately allowing the petition and making it absolute in favor of the petitioners, with no order as to costs. en-us Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:43:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78417 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that the withdrawal of the waiver of 1% revenue deposit by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs was arbitrary and not in line with Circular No. 11/01-Cus., dated 23rd February, 2001. The Court emphasized the binding nature of Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs on customs officers, limiting their discretion in demanding duty deposits. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to prescribed procedures and timelines in duty assessments, ultimately allowing the petition and making it absolute in favor of the petitioners, with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78417