https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776325 HC remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) with liberty to the respondent to file grounds of appeal against the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 26.02.2019, which upheld the inclusion of 1% handling charges in the assessable value for customs duty prior to 25.09.2017 and rejected the refund claim due to lack of evidence that the duty was not passed on. The Tribunal's earlier order allowing the appeal was set aside as it did not consider the 26.02.2019 order. The HC directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the refund claim in light of the Supreme Court precedents in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Wipro Ltd., and the specifics of the CIF contract. The appeal was disposed of by remanding the case for fresh adjudication. en-us Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Aug 2025 05:20:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776325 HC remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) with liberty to the respondent to file grounds of appeal against the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 26.02.2019, which upheld the inclusion of 1% handling charges in the assessable value for customs duty prior to 25.09.2017 and rejected the refund claim due to lack of evidence that the duty was not passed on. The Tribunal's earlier order allowing the appeal was set aside as it did not consider the 26.02.2019 order. The HC directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the refund claim in light of the Supreme Court precedents in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Wipro Ltd., and the specifics of the CIF contract. The appeal was disposed of by remanding the case for fresh adjudication. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776325