https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787024 The court reviewed whether a revisional authority exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 129DD by upholding an appellate order permitting redemption of detained gold. It held that where the record contains an accepted retraction and documentary ownership proof and the Department produces no independent material to displace them, affirming redemption subject to payment of redemption fine, penalty and duty is a permissible exercise of discretion and does not amount to jurisdictional error, perversity or impermissible reappreciation of evidence. The revisional order calibrating consequences rather than ordering absolute confiscation was therefore sustained and not susceptible to interference in writ jurisdiction. en-us Fri, 20 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Feb 2026 07:26:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787024 The court reviewed whether a revisional authority exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 129DD by upholding an appellate order permitting redemption of detained gold. It held that where the record contains an accepted retraction and documentary ownership proof and the Department produces no independent material to displace them, affirming redemption subject to payment of redemption fine, penalty and duty is a permissible exercise of discretion and does not amount to jurisdictional error, perversity or impermissible reappreciation of evidence. The revisional order calibrating consequences rather than ordering absolute confiscation was therefore sustained and not susceptible to interference in writ jurisdiction. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 20 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787024