Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Tools

We've upgraded AI Tools on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Tools

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

Appellate Order Quashed for Failing to Apply Mind Under Section 9(4) FTDR Act, Rule 10 Reviewed

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The HC quashed the impugned appellate order that partially cancelled MEIS scrips on the ground of excess availing, finding the Appellate Authority failed to apply its mind or provide reasons under Section 9(4) of the FTDR Act read with Rule 10 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. The court noted the retrospective cancellation was impermissible as the scrips had expired before initiation of cancellation proceedings. The alleged contravention related solely to foreign trade policy and did not satisfy the criteria under Rule 10(a), (b), or (c), with no proper justification under Rule 10(d). The matter was remanded to the first respondent for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and principles of natural justice, directing the authority to consider the grounds raised and record reasoned findings. The petitions were allowed by way of remand.....