https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265487 When orders-in-original demanding duty, penalty and redemption fine were annulled for want of jurisdiction and remanded for de novo adjudication, the amounts paid under those orders could not continue to be retained by the revenue. The pendency of fresh adjudication did not make the refund claims premature, because no subsisting order then fastened liability on the assessee. The settled principle applied was that money cannot be retained without authority of law merely because re-adjudication is pending, and the refund rejections were therefore unsustainable. en-us Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:27:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265487 When orders-in-original demanding duty, penalty and redemption fine were annulled for want of jurisdiction and remanded for de novo adjudication, the amounts paid under those orders could not continue to be retained by the revenue. The pendency of fresh adjudication did not make the refund claims premature, because no subsisting order then fastened liability on the assessee. The settled principle applied was that money cannot be retained without authority of law merely because re-adjudication is pending, and the refund rejections were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265487