https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217550 Revision under the Finance Act framework had to be filed within six months of communication of the order, with only a further six months available on sufficient cause; service by registered post was treated as valid, so late-receipt objections did not defeat limitation. The authority therefore treated the revision as time-barred. On penalty, it explained that Section 38(3) created a mandatory liability where foreign travel tax was not paid in time, with discretion confined to the statutory range. The amended rule could not cut down the parent statute, mens rea was not required, and the minimum penalty imposed was upheld as lawful. en-us Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217550 Revision under the Finance Act framework had to be filed within six months of communication of the order, with only a further six months available on sufficient cause; service by registered post was treated as valid, so late-receipt objections did not defeat limitation. The authority therefore treated the revision as time-barred. On penalty, it explained that Section 38(3) created a mandatory liability where foreign travel tax was not paid in time, with discretion confined to the statutory range. The amended rule could not cut down the parent statute, mens rea was not required, and the minimum penalty imposed was upheld as lawful. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217550