https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364716 The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Development Commissioner under Section 11 of the SEZ Act to impose penalties under Section 11(2) of the F.T. Act. It found that the Development Commissioner had the authority to act as an Adjudicating Officer for SEZ units under the F.T. Act. The court also affirmed the validity of the penalties imposed on the petitioner for fraudulent certification of biodiesel origin, reducing the penalty amount but emphasizing the seriousness of the petitioner's actions on trade relations. The writ petition was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents. en-us Mon, 30 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Apr 2019 14:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364716 The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Development Commissioner under Section 11 of the SEZ Act to impose penalties under Section 11(2) of the F.T. Act. It found that the Development Commissioner had the authority to act as an Adjudicating Officer for SEZ units under the F.T. Act. The court also affirmed the validity of the penalties imposed on the petitioner for fraudulent certification of biodiesel origin, reducing the penalty amount but emphasizing the seriousness of the petitioner's actions on trade relations. The writ petition was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 30 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364716