https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380573 Provisional release of seized goods was declined at the appellate stage because the request was not made promptly before the adjudicating authority, and the impugned order had already recorded findings of misdeclaration and misclassification with confirmation of duty demand and redemption fine. The tribunal noted that granting release would require a merits-based examination of issues already adjudicated, that the goods were not perishable, and that the delayed application showed no genuine urgency. Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules did not justify interference on these facts. Interlocutory relief was refused, while the appeal was directed for early hearing. en-us Wed, 20 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 May 2019 18:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380573 Provisional release of seized goods was declined at the appellate stage because the request was not made promptly before the adjudicating authority, and the impugned order had already recorded findings of misdeclaration and misclassification with confirmation of duty demand and redemption fine. The tribunal noted that granting release would require a merits-based examination of issues already adjudicated, that the goods were not perishable, and that the delayed application showed no genuine urgency. Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules did not justify interference on these facts. Interlocutory relief was refused, while the appeal was directed for early hearing. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 20 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380573