<?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>1982 (2) TMI 326 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309822</link>
    <description>Liability for foreign exchange contraventions committed while the 1947 Act was in force survived its repeal, because the repealing and saving provisions preserved prior liabilities and the later issue of show-cause notices did not extinguish them. Statements recorded at the investigative stage by officers subordinate to the Director of Enforcement were not vitiated under Section 19(E) merely because they were not taken by the adjudicating authority. The contravention findings were supported by the appellants&#039; own statements and seized documents, so they were upheld; penalty interference was limited to one appeal, where the quantum was reduced on the facts, while the remaining penalties were maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2023 15:39:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=726951" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (2) TMI 326 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309822</link>
      <description>Liability for foreign exchange contraventions committed while the 1947 Act was in force survived its repeal, because the repealing and saving provisions preserved prior liabilities and the later issue of show-cause notices did not extinguish them. Statements recorded at the investigative stage by officers subordinate to the Director of Enforcement were not vitiated under Section 19(E) merely because they were not taken by the adjudicating authority. The contravention findings were supported by the appellants&#039; own statements and seized documents, so they were upheld; penalty interference was limited to one appeal, where the quantum was reduced on the facts, while the remaining penalties were maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309822</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>