<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (9) TMI 86 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411741</link>
    <description>A show cause notice based on a Revenue Intelligence report alleging false and forged declarations in obtaining EPCG benefits and redemption certificates was treated as a fresh proceeding under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The court noted that the Act permits adjudication of contraventions, including notice, hearing, penalty and possible cancellation, where later intelligence reveals material irregularities. Section 16 review was confined to earlier adjudicated decisions or orders and did not bar action against a redemption certificate issued on the basis of information furnished by the licence holder and later questioned on new material. The challenge failed, and the writ petition was rejected with liberty to explain before the authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2021 10:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=654559" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 86 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411741</link>
      <description>A show cause notice based on a Revenue Intelligence report alleging false and forged declarations in obtaining EPCG benefits and redemption certificates was treated as a fresh proceeding under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The court noted that the Act permits adjudication of contraventions, including notice, hearing, penalty and possible cancellation, where later intelligence reveals material irregularities. Section 16 review was confined to earlier adjudicated decisions or orders and did not bar action against a redemption certificate issued on the basis of information furnished by the licence holder and later questioned on new material. The challenge failed, and the writ petition was rejected with liberty to explain before the authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411741</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>