<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (5) TMI 472 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76423</link>
    <description>Prosecution under Section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 requires a subsisting and wilful failure to pay the penalty on the date the complaint is filed. Where the appellate tribunal had waived the balance penalty through relief under Section 52(2) and the adjudication order remained under challenge, the non-payment could not be treated as deliberate default. As the essential ingredients of the offence were absent, the complaint was held not maintainable and was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114632" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 472 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76423</link>
      <description>Prosecution under Section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 requires a subsisting and wilful failure to pay the penalty on the date the complaint is filed. Where the appellate tribunal had waived the balance penalty through relief under Section 52(2) and the adjudication order remained under challenge, the non-payment could not be treated as deliberate default. As the essential ingredients of the offence were absent, the complaint was held not maintainable and was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76423</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>