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>Tribunal Waives Pre-Deposit, Condoning Delay for Financial Hardship; Emphasizes Justice Over Technicalities.</h1> <h3>Krina Agencies Versus Special Director (Appeals), Enforcement Directorate</h3> Krina Agencies Versus Special Director (Appeals), Enforcement Directorate - TMI Issues:1. Challenge of penalty imposed under Section 17(4) of FEMA, 1999.2. Delay in filing the appeal.3. Application for dispensation of the demand.4. Consideration of substantial justice over technical considerations.Detailed Analysis:1. The appellant challenged a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 imposed under Section 17(4) of FEMA, 1999 by the Special Director (Appeals), Enforcement Directorate. The appeal was filed along with an application for dispensation of the demand in question.2. The appellant, Shri Girish Ratilal Shah, passed away during the pendency of the case, and his legal heir, Smt. Usha Ben Girish Shah, was impleaded. The appellant's representative contended a minor delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to reasons beyond their control, such as the inability to get documentation in time and the demise of the appellant. The delay was condoned by the tribunal.3. The appellant's counsel argued for dispensation of the demand, stating that the appellant's widow was not financially capable of meeting the demand. The delay in filing the appeal was explained by the change in the appellant's office address due to selling the office building to pay off liabilities. The tribunal acknowledged the financial hardship faced by the widow and waived the pre-deposit, admitting the appeal for hearing.4. The tribunal considered the merits of the appeal and highlighted that the first appeal was dismissed on the technical point of limitation. Citing the principle of substantial justice prevailing over technical considerations, the tribunal remanded the appeal back to the Special Director (Appeals) for a decision on merits after setting aside the impugned order.In conclusion, the tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, waived the pre-deposit, and directed the Special Director (Appeals) to reconsider the first appeal on its merits, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice in the adjudication process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
