<?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 839 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457798</link>
    <description>Penalty for non-realisation of export proceeds was found unwarranted where the outstanding amount was realised during the pendency of the appeal and the appellant had shown pursuit of recovery. On the facts brought on record, the default stood cured by actual receipt of the export proceeds, so the basis for continuing the penalty no longer remained compelling. The penalty was accordingly set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2024 15:36:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770877" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 839 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457798</link>
      <description>Penalty for non-realisation of export proceeds was found unwarranted where the outstanding amount was realised during the pendency of the appeal and the appellant had shown pursuit of recovery. On the facts brought on record, the default stood cured by actual receipt of the export proceeds, so the basis for continuing the penalty no longer remained compelling. The penalty was accordingly set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457798</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>