Mis-declaration and Concealment: confiscation affirmed, transaction value re-determined and mandatory penalty sustained; redemption allowed on payment...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5561 to 5580 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Restoration of confiscated property during trial under the second proviso to Section 8(8) of the PMLA is controlled by Rule 3A of the 2016 Rules, as amended, which permits consideration only after framing of charge under Section 4. Where charges have not been framed, an application for restoration is premature. The pendency of an appeal against the adjudication order before the statutory appellate forum also bars a course that would trench upon or render the appellate remedy infructuous. Applying these principles, the restoration order was held contrary to the statutory scheme and was set aside.
Restoration of confiscated property during trial under the second proviso to Section 8(8) of the PMLA is controlled by Rule 3A of the 2016 Rules, as amended, which permits consideration only after framing of charge under Section 4. Where charges have not been framed, an application for restoration is premature. The pendency of an appeal against the adjudication order before the statutory appellate forum also bars a course that would trench upon or render the appellate remedy infructuous. Applying these principles, the restoration order was held contrary to the statutory scheme and was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.