https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43345 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the respondents to refund the amount paid and discharge the bank guarantee within two months. The Court emphasized the obligation of prompt restitution, highlighting that the payment and bank guarantee were based on the Tribunal's interim order. The Court acknowledged the respondents' legal arguments but stated that these could be addressed in the Supreme Court appeal, while the immediate duty was to refund the petitioner and cancel the bank guarantee. en-us Mon, 05 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:29:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43345 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the respondents to refund the amount paid and discharge the bank guarantee within two months. The Court emphasized the obligation of prompt restitution, highlighting that the payment and bank guarantee were based on the Tribunal's interim order. The Court acknowledged the respondents' legal arguments but stated that these could be addressed in the Supreme Court appeal, while the immediate duty was to refund the petitioner and cancel the bank guarantee. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 05 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43345