<?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>2009 (10) TMI 1002 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457379</link>
    <description>Where the governing foreign exchange statute made pre-deposit of the penalty a condition for entertaining the appeal, the appellate authority could dismiss the matter for non-compliance. The appellant had sought dispensation on undue hardship, but that request was rejected and the appellant still failed to make the required deposit despite opportunity. In these circumstances, the Tribunal applied the statutory scheme and held that it was entitled to reject the appeal without examining the merits. The appeal was therefore not entertained and stood dismissed for failure to satisfy the mandatory pre-deposit requirement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2024 15:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=768938" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 1002 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457379</link>
      <description>Where the governing foreign exchange statute made pre-deposit of the penalty a condition for entertaining the appeal, the appellate authority could dismiss the matter for non-compliance. The appellant had sought dispensation on undue hardship, but that request was rejected and the appellant still failed to make the required deposit despite opportunity. In these circumstances, the Tribunal applied the statutory scheme and held that it was entitled to reject the appeal without examining the merits. The appeal was therefore not entertained and stood dismissed for failure to satisfy the mandatory pre-deposit requirement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457379</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>