Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 95794 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AT dismissed the appeal filed under Section 19(1) of FEMA seeking enhancement of the penalty imposed for contravention of Sections 7 and 8 of FEMA relating to failure to realize export proceeds. It was held that Section 13(1) of FEMA caps the penalty at three times the contravened amount but does not prescribe a minimum or fixed sum, leaving the quantum of penalty to the Adjudicating Authority's discretion, to be exercised judiciously based on facts and evidence. The Adjudicating Authority had imposed a penalty equivalent to 100% of the contravened amount, which the AT found reasonable and objective. The AT criticized the appellant ED for pursuing enhancement appeals despite the respondents being untraceable, thereby diminishing recovery prospects. Consequently, the penalty order was upheld, and the appeal for enhancement was dismissed for lack of merit.
The AT dismissed the appeal filed under Section 19(1) of FEMA seeking enhancement of the penalty imposed for contravention of Sections 7 and 8 of FEMA relating to failure to realize export proceeds. It was held that Section 13(1) of FEMA caps the penalty at three times the contravened amount but does not prescribe a minimum or fixed sum, leaving the quantum of penalty to the Adjudicating Authority's discretion, to be exercised judiciously based on facts and evidence. The Adjudicating Authority had imposed a penalty equivalent to 100% of the contravened amount, which the AT found reasonable and objective. The AT criticized the appellant ED for pursuing enhancement appeals despite the respondents being untraceable, thereby diminishing recovery prospects. Consequently, the penalty order was upheld, and the appeal for enhancement was dismissed for lack of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
