https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183257 Penalty for delayed filing of Foreign Travel Tax returns and late deposit of collected tax was sustained because the statutory scheme treated proof of the default itself as sufficient; absence of mens rea did not defeat liability under the governing provisions. The fresh order after remand also remained valid because the authority confined itself to the remitted question, examined whether the notice was within time, and imposed penalty only on the established defaults. The remand was not exceeded, as no extraneous issue was decided. en-us Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jun 2016 18:56:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183257 Penalty for delayed filing of Foreign Travel Tax returns and late deposit of collected tax was sustained because the statutory scheme treated proof of the default itself as sufficient; absence of mens rea did not defeat liability under the governing provisions. The fresh order after remand also remained valid because the authority confined itself to the remitted question, examined whether the notice was within time, and imposed penalty only on the established defaults. The remand was not exceeded, as no extraneous issue was decided. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183257