Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2011 (1) TMI 1072 - HC - FEMA

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Court upholds EEPC's refusal to clear claims due to incomplete documentation under IPR Scheme The Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the Engineering Export Promotion Council's (EEPC) refusal to clear the claims due to incomplete documentation ...
                          Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                            Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                                Court upholds EEPC's refusal to clear claims due to incomplete documentation under IPR Scheme

                                The Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the Engineering Export Promotion Council's (EEPC) refusal to clear the claims due to incomplete documentation provided by the Petitioners. The Court emphasized that the EEPC's actions were justified as the verification process required complete documentation as per the International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPR Scheme). The petitions were found to lack merit and were dismissed without any costs awarded.




                                Issues Involved:
                                1. Entitlement to benefits under the International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPR Scheme).
                                2. Impact of criminal proceedings on the disbursement of claims.
                                3. Requirement and sufficiency of documentation for claim verification under the IPR Scheme.
                                4. Allegations of arbitrary and unreasonable actions by the Engineering Export Promotion Council (EEPC).

                                Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                                1. Entitlement to benefits under the International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPR Scheme):
                                The Petitioner, a proprietary concern and merchant-exporter, claimed benefits under the IPR Scheme for exports made during 1992-94. The scheme was designed to compensate exporters for the price differential in raw materials like steel. Claims amounting to Rs. 25,88,304 were submitted to the EEPC. The EEPC's role was to verify these claims as per the scheme's provisions.

                                2. Impact of criminal proceedings on the disbursement of claims:
                                The EEPC withheld the disbursement of the claimed amount due to a criminal case registered by the CBI against Mr. Yashpal Anand, the late husband of the current proprietor. Although the claims did not pertain to the years under investigation, the EEPC did not release the funds due to the pending criminal case. Following acquittals and the abatement of the criminal trial upon Mr. Yashpal Anand's death, the Petitioners argued that there was no longer any impediment to the release of payments.

                                3. Requirement and sufficiency of documentation for claim verification under the IPR Scheme:
                                The EEPC required specific documents for claim verification, including Customs Certified Invoices, Bank Realization Certificates, Customs Certified Packing Lists, and Test Certificates. The Petitioners contended that they had already submitted the necessary documents, and further requests by the EEPC were unwarranted. However, the EEPC maintained that the documentation provided was incomplete, which prevented the processing of claims. The Court noted that the IPR Scheme and Handbook mandated the submission of these documents, and without them, the EEPC could not verify the claims. The Court found that not even one of the claims contained the complete set of required documents.

                                4. Allegations of arbitrary and unreasonable actions by the EEPC:
                                The Petitioners alleged that the EEPC was acting arbitrarily by repeatedly asking for documents and not releasing the payments despite the acquittals and the submission of documents. The EEPC argued that the claims could not be processed without the complete set of required documents. The Court found that the EEPC's actions were neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, as the verification process necessitated the complete documentation as per the IPR Scheme. The Court upheld the EEPC's right to seek further clarification and documentation to ensure compliance with the scheme's requirements.

                                Conclusion:
                                The Court dismissed the petitions, concluding that the EEPC's refusal to clear the claims was justified due to the incomplete documentation provided by the Petitioners. The Court emphasized that the EEPC could not process claims without the necessary documents as stipulated by the IPR Scheme. There was no merit found in the petitions, and they were dismissed with no order as to costs.
                                Full Summary is available for active users!
                                Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                                Topics

                                ActsIncome Tax
                                No Records Found