https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94086 The Tribunal held that, where its final order had already set aside confiscation and penalties and granted consequential relief, pendency of a departmental revision before the High Court did not by itself justify withholding release of the seized gold biscuits, vehicle, or sale proceeds, or refund of penalty amounts deposited. In the absence of any stay order from the High Court restraining implementation, the relief earlier directed remained operative and was enforceable. The applicants were therefore entitled to release of the seized goods or sale proceeds and refund of the deposited penalties within the time fixed by the Tribunal. en-us Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Nov 2011 18:46:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94086 The Tribunal held that, where its final order had already set aside confiscation and penalties and granted consequential relief, pendency of a departmental revision before the High Court did not by itself justify withholding release of the seized gold biscuits, vehicle, or sale proceeds, or refund of penalty amounts deposited. In the absence of any stay order from the High Court restraining implementation, the relief earlier directed remained operative and was enforceable. The applicants were therefore entitled to release of the seized goods or sale proceeds and refund of the deposited penalties within the time fixed by the Tribunal. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94086