<?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>2004 (10) TMI 645 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457681</link>
    <description>The Tribunal quashed the adjudication order for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act due to insufficient evidence. It found no concrete proof of debt acknowledgment by the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the pre-deposit amount was ordered to be refunded within 15 days, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence for such decisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2024 18:44:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770498" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 645 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457681</link>
      <description>The Tribunal quashed the adjudication order for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act due to insufficient evidence. It found no concrete proof of debt acknowledgment by the appellant. The appeal was allowed, and the pre-deposit amount was ordered to be refunded within 15 days, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence for such decisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457681</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>