<?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>2024 (12) TMI 625 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763045</link>
    <description>A refusal of MEIS scrip entitlement under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 was held appealable under the statutory scheme, because Sections 9 and 15 allow appeals against refusal of a licence, certificate, scrip or other fiscal benefit and the processing authority could be treated as the relevant adjudicating authority for this purpose. The rejection letter was also found unsustainable because it was not a speaking order: it did not engage with the applicant&#039;s material or clearly explain the basis of ineligibility. The appellate rejection and underlying communication were quashed, and the claim was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the applicant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:55:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=782213" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 625 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763045</link>
      <description>A refusal of MEIS scrip entitlement under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 was held appealable under the statutory scheme, because Sections 9 and 15 allow appeals against refusal of a licence, certificate, scrip or other fiscal benefit and the processing authority could be treated as the relevant adjudicating authority for this purpose. The rejection letter was also found unsustainable because it was not a speaking order: it did not engage with the applicant&#039;s material or clearly explain the basis of ineligibility. The appellate rejection and underlying communication were quashed, and the claim was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the applicant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763045</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>