https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247012 The Court dismissed the petition seeking a refund of demurrage charges on seized goods, citing that Regulation 6(1) did not apply retroactively to goods seized before its notification. Relying on a Division Bench judgment, the Court emphasized the importer's liability for demurrage charges post-adjudication and the distinction between pre and post-confiscation payment obligations. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court highlighted the Regulations' broader scope in determining the service provider's relationship with Revenue, leading to the dismissal of the petition due to lack of merit. en-us Tue, 06 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247012 The Court dismissed the petition seeking a refund of demurrage charges on seized goods, citing that Regulation 6(1) did not apply retroactively to goods seized before its notification. Relying on a Division Bench judgment, the Court emphasized the importer's liability for demurrage charges post-adjudication and the distinction between pre and post-confiscation payment obligations. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court highlighted the Regulations' broader scope in determining the service provider's relationship with Revenue, leading to the dismissal of the petition due to lack of merit. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 06 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247012