https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384601 The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned orders and directing the petitioner's claim to be processed within three months. The Court criticized the rejection of the condonation application due to lack of formal order and failure to provide an opportunity for clarification. It clarified the retrospective application of revised time limits under the Circular and deemed the application for brand rate fixation maintainable, reinstating the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision. en-us Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Nov 2020 16:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384601 The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned orders and directing the petitioner's claim to be processed within three months. The Court criticized the rejection of the condonation application due to lack of formal order and failure to provide an opportunity for clarification. It clarified the retrospective application of revised time limits under the Circular and deemed the application for brand rate fixation maintainable, reinstating the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384601