https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336793 A revisional order passed by an incompetent authority was held liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. The High Court also noted that the appellate authority had not properly examined whether the goods were "prohibited goods" under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962, leaving the factual and legal issues on confiscation and penalty insufficiently considered. Because the merits had not been fully addressed, the impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration by the appellate authority on the substantive question of the nature of the goods. en-us Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Apr 2017 14:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336793 A revisional order passed by an incompetent authority was held liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. The High Court also noted that the appellate authority had not properly examined whether the goods were "prohibited goods" under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962, leaving the factual and legal issues on confiscation and penalty insufficiently considered. Because the merits had not been fully addressed, the impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration by the appellate authority on the substantive question of the nature of the goods. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336793