https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334535 The Court set aside the Deputy Commissioner of Customs' order challenged in W.P. NO.473 of 2016, directing a fresh consideration of the refund application by the Commissioner. The Court emphasized the lack of application of mind by the Commissioner in not considering relevant legal provisions and judgments. Despite the availability of an appellate remedy, the Court found an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, prompting the decision to allow the refund application to be reconsidered. Procedural directions were issued for proper documentation and compliance across related cases. en-us Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jan 2017 18:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334535 The Court set aside the Deputy Commissioner of Customs' order challenged in W.P. NO.473 of 2016, directing a fresh consideration of the refund application by the Commissioner. The Court emphasized the lack of application of mind by the Commissioner in not considering relevant legal provisions and judgments. Despite the availability of an appellate remedy, the Court found an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, prompting the decision to allow the refund application to be reconsidered. Procedural directions were issued for proper documentation and compliance across related cases. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334535