https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184204 Under the FERA adjudication scheme, the initial show-cause notice under rule 3(1) was treated as the taking of notice of contravention for section 49(3) of FEMA, while the later notice fixing hearing under rule 3(3) was only a procedural step. On that basis, the limitation challenge failed and the proceedings were held to have been initiated within the sunset period. The appellate tribunal's insistence on a bank guarantee as a condition for hearing was set aside because the record showed financial incapacity and the condition rested on conjecture rather than the materials before it. en-us Wed, 21 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jul 2016 10:08:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184204 Under the FERA adjudication scheme, the initial show-cause notice under rule 3(1) was treated as the taking of notice of contravention for section 49(3) of FEMA, while the later notice fixing hearing under rule 3(3) was only a procedural step. On that basis, the limitation challenge failed and the proceedings were held to have been initiated within the sunset period. The appellate tribunal's insistence on a bank guarantee as a condition for hearing was set aside because the record showed financial incapacity and the condition rested on conjecture rather than the materials before it. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 21 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184204