https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382361 The thirty-day period for payment under section 90(2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 was construed as running from receipt of the designated authority's order, not merely from the date of its passing, because a practical reading was needed to preserve the scheme's benefit. The retrospective substitution of section 90(2) also displaced the constitutional challenge to the original provision and made the amended time limit govern pending disputes. On the stated facts, the petitioners were treated as having complied by depositing the amount within thirty days of receipt, entitling them to settlement and requiring issuance of the final certificate, with recovery notices liable to be quashed. en-us Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Nov 2019 18:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382361 The thirty-day period for payment under section 90(2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 was construed as running from receipt of the designated authority's order, not merely from the date of its passing, because a practical reading was needed to preserve the scheme's benefit. The retrospective substitution of section 90(2) also displaced the constitutional challenge to the original provision and made the amended time limit govern pending disputes. On the stated facts, the petitioners were treated as having complied by depositing the amount within thirty days of receipt, entitling them to settlement and requiring issuance of the final certificate, with recovery notices liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382361