https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468235 Review jurisdiction requires a patent error on the face of the record; none was shown here. The Court treated the respondents' statement during hearing to release the amount within two weeks as an unconditional undertaking, not a conditional offer, and found that the reviewed order was not based on any misunderstood offer. The petitioners did not contemporaneously object to that treatment, and their later return of the demand draft did not clearly state that the offer itself was unacceptable. On those facts, no apparent error in the reviewed order was established, and review was refused. en-us Tue, 27 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Apr 2026 18:48:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468235 Review jurisdiction requires a patent error on the face of the record; none was shown here. The Court treated the respondents' statement during hearing to release the amount within two weeks as an unconditional undertaking, not a conditional offer, and found that the reviewed order was not based on any misunderstood offer. The petitioners did not contemporaneously object to that treatment, and their later return of the demand draft did not clearly state that the offer itself was unacceptable. On those facts, no apparent error in the reviewed order was established, and review was refused. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 27 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468235