https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119970 The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) retains the power to remand cases despite amendments to the Customs Act. It found the duty demand under Section 72(1)(b) lawful, emphasizing the Commissioner (Appeals) should have assessed its legality. The Tribunal clarified that the power to extend warehousing periods and permit re-export lies with the Commissioner of Customs, not the Commissioner (Appeals). It noted the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded his jurisdiction by focusing on financial constraints rather than the legality of the duty demand. The Tribunal restored the Dy. Commissioner's Order-in-Original, allowing the Revenue's appeal. en-us Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:41:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119970 The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) retains the power to remand cases despite amendments to the Customs Act. It found the duty demand under Section 72(1)(b) lawful, emphasizing the Commissioner (Appeals) should have assessed its legality. The Tribunal clarified that the power to extend warehousing periods and permit re-export lies with the Commissioner of Customs, not the Commissioner (Appeals). It noted the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded his jurisdiction by focusing on financial constraints rather than the legality of the duty demand. The Tribunal restored the Dy. Commissioner's Order-in-Original, allowing the Revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119970