https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457563 A mere misdescription of a party's name, limited to the addition or omission of "Trading" while the address and identity remained consistent, was treated as a non-substantive error causing no prejudice to the defence. The commentary also states that statements recorded before Enforcement Directorate officers were admissible because such officers are not police officers for sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, and that an unparticularised plea of duress was insufficient. On that basis, the record was said to sustain the finding of contravention and the penalty order. en-us Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Sep 2024 17:23:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457563 A mere misdescription of a party's name, limited to the addition or omission of "Trading" while the address and identity remained consistent, was treated as a non-substantive error causing no prejudice to the defence. The commentary also states that statements recorded before Enforcement Directorate officers were admissible because such officers are not police officers for sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, and that an unparticularised plea of duress was insufficient. On that basis, the record was said to sustain the finding of contravention and the penalty order. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457563