<?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>1995 (11) TMI 486 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457914</link>
    <description>Penalty for failure to secure receipt of foreign exchange could not be sustained without prior directions from the Reserve Bank under the enabling provision, because the statutory scheme required non-compliance with such directions before action under the penal provisions could follow. Mere delay in bringing in the commission amount was therefore insufficient to attract adjudication and penalty against the company. The consequential penalty on the Director also failed, because his liability depended on the same unsustainable proceedings against the company and there was no independent basis for separate punishment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2024 16:19:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771205" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (11) TMI 486 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457914</link>
      <description>Penalty for failure to secure receipt of foreign exchange could not be sustained without prior directions from the Reserve Bank under the enabling provision, because the statutory scheme required non-compliance with such directions before action under the penal provisions could follow. Mere delay in bringing in the commission amount was therefore insufficient to attract adjudication and penalty against the company. The consequential penalty on the Director also failed, because his liability depended on the same unsustainable proceedings against the company and there was no independent basis for separate punishment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457914</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>