Fraudulently obtained SEIS scrips cannot support customs exemption; recovery, confiscation and penalties were sustained, but employee penalty fell awa...
A waiver application filed beyond three months from the notified date could not be rejected solely as time-barred because the relevant notification used enabling language and the filing period was directory, not mandatory. The High Court held that the authority misdirected itself in law by treating the three-month period as an inflexible bar. The rejection order was quashed, and the application was directed to be reconsidered on merits in accordance with law; pending such reconsideration, the show cause notice, summary notice and order in original were kept in abeyance.
A waiver application filed beyond three months from the notified date could not be rejected solely as time-barred because the relevant notification used enabling language and the filing period was directory, not mandatory. The High Court held that the authority misdirected itself in law by treating the three-month period as an inflexible bar. The rejection order was quashed, and the application was directed to be reconsidered on merits in accordance with law; pending such reconsideration, the show cause notice, summary notice and order in original were kept in abeyance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
