https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281001 The court interpreted "undue hardship" in the Proviso to Section 19 of FEMA to include situations where the burden imposed is disproportionate to fault or guilt. It ruled that a strong prima facie case can warrant waiver of deposit, even without financial hardship. Referring to provisions in other laws, the court outlined factors like balance of convenience and capacity to pay when granting waivers. In a case involving a penalized bank, the court found a strong prima facie case but required a 50% deposit of the penalty amount for the appeal to proceed. The judgment emphasized the importance of balancing various factors in deciding on deposit waivers under FEMA. en-us Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 May 2019 11:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281001 The court interpreted "undue hardship" in the Proviso to Section 19 of FEMA to include situations where the burden imposed is disproportionate to fault or guilt. It ruled that a strong prima facie case can warrant waiver of deposit, even without financial hardship. Referring to provisions in other laws, the court outlined factors like balance of convenience and capacity to pay when granting waivers. In a case involving a penalized bank, the court found a strong prima facie case but required a 50% deposit of the penalty amount for the appeal to proceed. The judgment emphasized the importance of balancing various factors in deciding on deposit waivers under FEMA. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281001