https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457733 The tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside penalties of Rs. 2.5 lakhs and Rs. 1.5 lakhs for contravening sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA, respectively, due to procedural lapses and lack of evidence. However, it upheld the confiscation of Rs. 8.5 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 50,000 for contravening section 9(1)(d) read with section 64(2), citing the appellant's inconsistent statements and failure to justify the seized amount. en-us Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2024 16:42:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457733 The tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside penalties of Rs. 2.5 lakhs and Rs. 1.5 lakhs for contravening sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA, respectively, due to procedural lapses and lack of evidence. However, it upheld the confiscation of Rs. 8.5 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 50,000 for contravening section 9(1)(d) read with section 64(2), citing the appellant's inconsistent statements and failure to justify the seized amount. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457733