TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Succeeds: Adjudication Order Overturned Due to Insufficient Evidence; Refund of Penalty Ordered.</h1> <h3>Rajan K. Shah Versus Director of Enforcement</h3> The appeal was allowed by the Board, setting aside the impugned Adjudication Order against the appellant for contravening sections of the Foreign Exchange ... - Issues:1. Contravention of sections 14 and 19(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.2. Allegations related to the payment received from another party.3. Failure to offer owned foreign exchange for sale within the prescribed time.4. Dispute regarding the authenticity of a credit note and its legal implications.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against an Adjudication Order holding the appellant guilty of contravention of certain sections of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, imposing penalties. The impugned order against other parties was set aside earlier. The appellant had already deposited the penalty amount, leading to the final order.2. The charge of contravention related to a payment allegedly received from another party. However, as the payment was not proved based on records from related appeals, the charge could not be sustained against the appellant.3. The charge of contravention of section 14 was based on the appellant's alleged ownership of foreign exchange but failing to offer it for sale within the required timeframe. The allegation stemmed from a credit note, disputed by the appellant, raising questions about the legal implications of such a document.4. The appellant disputed the credit note's authenticity, arguing against the charge of contravention of section 14. The judgment highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the allegation and the appellant's valid reasons for challenging the credit note's genuineness. Ultimately, the Board found the charge against the appellant neither legally tenable nor substantiated by evidence.5. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order against the appellant. The respondents were directed to refund any penalty amount deposited by the appellant within a specified timeframe.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
