https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394250 Appellate orders had already crystallised the petitioner's refund entitlement, but the refund applications remained unprocessed despite repeated requests and notice. Continuing administrative inaction justified a direction to process the applications within a fixed period, and to undertake reassessment of the bills of entry if such reassessment was legally necessary to implement the refund claim. The operative effect was that the authorities could not indefinitely withhold implementation of a refund right recognised by appellate orders, and were required to act within the prescribed time. en-us Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Apr 2020 12:41:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394250 Appellate orders had already crystallised the petitioner's refund entitlement, but the refund applications remained unprocessed despite repeated requests and notice. Continuing administrative inaction justified a direction to process the applications within a fixed period, and to undertake reassessment of the bills of entry if such reassessment was legally necessary to implement the refund claim. The operative effect was that the authorities could not indefinitely withhold implementation of a refund right recognised by appellate orders, and were required to act within the prescribed time. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394250