<?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>2001 (6) TMI 836 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457757</link>
    <description>Penalty for alleged foreign exchange contravention was found unsustainable where the adjudicatory record did not provide cogent evidence linking the appellant to the disputed payments. The tribunal noted that the finding rested on inference rather than proved facts, while the connected criminal cases on the same allegations had ended in honourable acquittal and full exoneration. Discrepancies in the supporting material and the absence of identification by the recipients further weakened the case. On that basis, continuation of adjudication on the same charges and evidence was treated as unjustified, and the penalty order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2024 18:51:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770713" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 836 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457757</link>
      <description>Penalty for alleged foreign exchange contravention was found unsustainable where the adjudicatory record did not provide cogent evidence linking the appellant to the disputed payments. The tribunal noted that the finding rested on inference rather than proved facts, while the connected criminal cases on the same allegations had ended in honourable acquittal and full exoneration. Discrepancies in the supporting material and the absence of identification by the recipients further weakened the case. On that basis, continuation of adjudication on the same charges and evidence was treated as unjustified, and the penalty order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457757</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>