<?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>2015 (2) TMI 1044 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257044</link>
    <description>Under FERA, adjudication for contravention and criminal prosecution operate as separate and independent remedies, so a finding in one proceeding does not bind the other. An acquittal in the criminal case does not automatically wipe out the basis for a departmental penalty or preclude its sustenance in adjudication. The appellate authority was therefore justified in maintaining the penalty despite the acquittal, and the Tribunal&#039;s order modifying the penalty was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2015 08:19:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=377237" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 1044 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257044</link>
      <description>Under FERA, adjudication for contravention and criminal prosecution operate as separate and independent remedies, so a finding in one proceeding does not bind the other. An acquittal in the criminal case does not automatically wipe out the basis for a departmental penalty or preclude its sustenance in adjudication. The appellate authority was therefore justified in maintaining the penalty despite the acquittal, and the Tribunal&#039;s order modifying the penalty was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>