https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784420 Section 25(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2016), and the linked notification enhancing customs duty, were challenged as unconstitutional and as wrongly applied to demand a higher duty based on the notification's operative date. Relying on bindingly persuasive HC precedent holding Section 25(4) arbitrary and contrary to Section 25(1) and (2), and noting another HC view declaring it illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional, the HC held the demand unsustainable. The impugned bill of entry was quashed, and the revenue was directed to refund the deposited duty amount with interest from deposit until refund within three months. en-us Mon, 17 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:04:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784420 Section 25(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2016), and the linked notification enhancing customs duty, were challenged as unconstitutional and as wrongly applied to demand a higher duty based on the notification's operative date. Relying on bindingly persuasive HC precedent holding Section 25(4) arbitrary and contrary to Section 25(1) and (2), and noting another HC view declaring it illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional, the HC held the demand unsustainable. The impugned bill of entry was quashed, and the revenue was directed to refund the deposited duty amount with interest from deposit until refund within three months. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 17 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784420