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.
The HC quashed the impugned appellate order that partially cancelled MEIS scrips on the ground of excess availing, finding the Appellate Authority failed to apply its mind or provide reasons under Section 9(4) of the FTDR Act read with Rule 10 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. The court noted the retrospective cancellation was impermissible as the scrips had expired before initiation of cancellation proceedings. The alleged contravention related solely to foreign trade policy and did not satisfy the criteria under Rule 10(a), (b), or (c), with no proper justification under Rule 10(d). The matter was remanded to the first respondent for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and principles of natural justice, directing the authority to consider the grounds raised and record reasoned findings. The petitions were allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.