https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372035 Restrictive recovery measures against a director's immovable property, bank accounts, and deposited sums cannot be continued where no crystallized monetary demand has arisen after adjudication. The Bombay HC noted that although the show-cause notice was adjudicated by rejecting and redetermining export valuation and related drawback/MEIS claims, and confiscation was ordered, no tax or duty demand had been raised against the petitioner. On that record, the prohibitory communication and bank account attachment were unsustainable, and the department's reliance on an ongoing investigation was insufficient. The deposited amount could not be appropriated without a legal demand. The measures were set aside and refund was directed against a matching bank guarantee. en-us Thu, 06 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Apr 2019 11:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372035 Restrictive recovery measures against a director's immovable property, bank accounts, and deposited sums cannot be continued where no crystallized monetary demand has arisen after adjudication. The Bombay HC noted that although the show-cause notice was adjudicated by rejecting and redetermining export valuation and related drawback/MEIS claims, and confiscation was ordered, no tax or duty demand had been raised against the petitioner. On that record, the prohibitory communication and bank account attachment were unsustainable, and the department's reliance on an ongoing investigation was insufficient. The deposited amount could not be appropriated without a legal demand. The measures were set aside and refund was directed against a matching bank guarantee. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 06 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372035