Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court held that the rejection letter issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (JDGFT) rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) scrip is appealable u/s 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The authority processing the application u/s 9 would be treated as an adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of Section 15, even if not formally designated as such. Consequently, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the rejection letter was maintainable. The High Court quashed the orders rejecting the appeal as non-admissible and the rejection letter, and remanded the matter to the JDGFT for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and passing a speaking order.
The High Court held that the rejection letter issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (JDGFT) rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) scrip is appealable u/s 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The authority processing the application u/s 9 would be treated as an adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of Section 15, even if not formally designated as such. Consequently, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the rejection letter was maintainable. The High Court quashed the orders rejecting the appeal as non-admissible and the rejection letter, and remanded the matter to the JDGFT for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and passing a speaking order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
