<?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>2022 (12) TMI 976 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431859</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, upholding the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s orders. It determined that a single-Member Bench is valid under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and denied the appellant&#039;s request for cross-examination of witnesses. The Tribunal emphasized that cross-examination should not be allowed to delay proceedings and should be permitted only exceptionally, not routinely.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2022 09:18:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=699499" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (12) TMI 976 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431859</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, upholding the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s orders. It determined that a single-Member Bench is valid under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and denied the appellant&#039;s request for cross-examination of witnesses. The Tribunal emphasized that cross-examination should not be allowed to delay proceedings and should be permitted only exceptionally, not routinely.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431859</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>