https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457684 Penalty for alleged contravention of sections 8(3) and 8(4) read with section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was held unsustainable because the remittance discrepancy was satisfactorily explained. The appellant showed that the apparent difference arose from interest being added to the original import payment, and a bank letter corroborated that the total amount paid, including interest, matched the figure in the adjudication order. As the only basis for the contravention finding was not supported by the evidence on record, the penalty could not be sustained and was set aside. en-us Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Sep 2024 18:44:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457684 Penalty for alleged contravention of sections 8(3) and 8(4) read with section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was held unsustainable because the remittance discrepancy was satisfactorily explained. The appellant showed that the apparent difference arose from interest being added to the original import payment, and a bank letter corroborated that the total amount paid, including interest, matched the figure in the adjudication order. As the only basis for the contravention finding was not supported by the evidence on record, the penalty could not be sustained and was set aside. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457684