https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457717 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, quashing the penalties imposed on the appellants. It concluded that the proceedings were misconceived and untenable, emphasizing the significance of the ECGC cover and the appellant's efforts to recover export proceeds. The Tribunal found that the non-realization of proceeds was beyond the appellant's control, and the interpretation of "permission" under FERA, 1973, supported the appellant's position. The decision underscored the inapplicability of section 68 of FERA in this context, aligning with the appellant's arguments and legal precedents. en-us Mon, 12 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2024 16:42:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457717 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, quashing the penalties imposed on the appellants. It concluded that the proceedings were misconceived and untenable, emphasizing the significance of the ECGC cover and the appellant's efforts to recover export proceeds. The Tribunal found that the non-realization of proceeds was beyond the appellant's control, and the interpretation of "permission" under FERA, 1973, supported the appellant's position. The decision underscored the inapplicability of section 68 of FERA in this context, aligning with the appellant's arguments and legal precedents. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 12 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457717