https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242366 Penalty for alleged foreign exchange contravention could not rest on an unproved disbursement figure supported only by loose sheets and a diary, because such papers were not treated as books of account kept in the regular course of business and lacked evidentiary value under section 34 of the Evidence Act. The complaint of denial of cross-examination also failed, as no specific request had been made and the adjudication rules were not found breached. Liability was therefore confined to the extent of Rs. 8,37,000, where the material, including an unretracted statement and corroboration, proved unauthorised dealing in foreign exchange; the larger allegation was rejected and the penalty reduced accordingly. en-us Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:12:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242366 Penalty for alleged foreign exchange contravention could not rest on an unproved disbursement figure supported only by loose sheets and a diary, because such papers were not treated as books of account kept in the regular course of business and lacked evidentiary value under section 34 of the Evidence Act. The complaint of denial of cross-examination also failed, as no specific request had been made and the adjudication rules were not found breached. Liability was therefore confined to the extent of Rs. 8,37,000, where the material, including an unretracted statement and corroboration, proved unauthorised dealing in foreign exchange; the larger allegation was rejected and the penalty reduced accordingly. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242366