https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778800 HC held that forfeiture of the EMD was treated as an order by the Commissioner but the Commissioner (Appeals) refused jurisdiction, characterising the dispute as contractual. The petitioner is permitted to challenge the Assistant Commissioner's refund order dated 30 April 2024 and the Commissioner (Appeals) order before CESTAT; the appeal must be filed within two weeks and annex both impugned orders. CESTAT is directed to entertain the appeal on merits and determine whether the EMD forfeiture complied with law. Petition disposed. en-us Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Sep 2025 08:29:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778800 HC held that forfeiture of the EMD was treated as an order by the Commissioner but the Commissioner (Appeals) refused jurisdiction, characterising the dispute as contractual. The petitioner is permitted to challenge the Assistant Commissioner's refund order dated 30 April 2024 and the Commissioner (Appeals) order before CESTAT; the appeal must be filed within two weeks and annex both impugned orders. CESTAT is directed to entertain the appeal on merits and determine whether the EMD forfeiture complied with law. Petition disposed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778800