https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247857 The Supreme Court held that the reliance on retracted confessional statements by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) without corroborative evidence was a serious legal flaw, invalidating the adjudication order. Criticizing the denial of cross-examination of ED officials and the non-translation of crucial documents, the court found the loose sheets inadmissible as evidence due to improper translation. Despite discharge in criminal proceedings, the ED's failure to substantiate charges led to the court setting aside the orders, directing the refund of seized amounts to the appellants. en-us Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 25 May 2014 12:49:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247857 The Supreme Court held that the reliance on retracted confessional statements by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) without corroborative evidence was a serious legal flaw, invalidating the adjudication order. Criticizing the denial of cross-examination of ED officials and the non-translation of crucial documents, the court found the loose sheets inadmissible as evidence due to improper translation. Despite discharge in criminal proceedings, the ED's failure to substantiate charges led to the court setting aside the orders, directing the refund of seized amounts to the appellants. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247857