https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782717 HC declined to adjudicate the petitioners' claim for release of detained gold bangles under writ jurisdiction, holding that disputed questions of fact existed regarding ownership, as the detention receipt named only one claimant while three individuals asserted title. The Court therefore did not decide the alleged violation of natural justice on merits. Instead, it granted liberty to assail the impugned Order-in-Original dated 21 March 2024 before the Commissioner (Appeals). It directed that, if such appeal is filed on or before 15 January 2026, it shall be entertained on merits in accordance with law and not rejected as time-barred. en-us Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 16:36:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782717 HC declined to adjudicate the petitioners' claim for release of detained gold bangles under writ jurisdiction, holding that disputed questions of fact existed regarding ownership, as the detention receipt named only one claimant while three individuals asserted title. The Court therefore did not decide the alleged violation of natural justice on merits. Instead, it granted liberty to assail the impugned Order-in-Original dated 21 March 2024 before the Commissioner (Appeals). It directed that, if such appeal is filed on or before 15 January 2026, it shall be entertained on merits in accordance with law and not rejected as time-barred. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782717