https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237607 The court held that the communication dated 10.3.2010 was not an appealable assessment order under the Customs Act. It clarified that Section 18(2) does not require a final assessment order and emphasized the obligation to pass a speaking order under Section 17(5) when there is a dispute. The court found a violation of natural justice in finalizing the bill of entry without addressing objections. It deemed the rejection of the refund application unjust due to the absence of a challengeable assessment order. The court directed the Proper Officer to issue a speaking order within three months, allowing the appellant to seek further legal recourse based on the new assessment. en-us Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jan 2014 12:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237607 The court held that the communication dated 10.3.2010 was not an appealable assessment order under the Customs Act. It clarified that Section 18(2) does not require a final assessment order and emphasized the obligation to pass a speaking order under Section 17(5) when there is a dispute. The court found a violation of natural justice in finalizing the bill of entry without addressing objections. It deemed the rejection of the refund application unjust due to the absence of a challengeable assessment order. The court directed the Proper Officer to issue a speaking order within three months, allowing the appellant to seek further legal recourse based on the new assessment. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237607