<?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>2005 (12) TMI 107 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47653</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed the writ petitions challenging the cancellation of the DEPB Scheme and the penalty under Section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The court held that the petitioners engaged in fraud by using forged bank certificates to obtain DEPB benefits, justifying the cancellation and penalties. The court rejected claims of discrimination and emphasized that fraud nullifies legal acts, thus supporting the respondents&#039; actions. The court concluded that the petitioners&#039; arguments lacked merit and upheld the orders of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, affirming the legality of the penalties imposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2024 12:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 107 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47653</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed the writ petitions challenging the cancellation of the DEPB Scheme and the penalty under Section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The court held that the petitioners engaged in fraud by using forged bank certificates to obtain DEPB benefits, justifying the cancellation and penalties. The court rejected claims of discrimination and emphasized that fraud nullifies legal acts, thus supporting the respondents&#039; actions. The court concluded that the petitioners&#039; arguments lacked merit and upheld the orders of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, affirming the legality of the penalties imposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47653</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>