https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457907 The appeal was allowed, and the penalty order under section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, was set aside. The Chairman concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the contravention charge against the appellant, who had received Rs. 44,000 from a non-resident brother. The decision emphasized the lack of substantial evidence and acknowledged the appellant's compliance with exchange regulations, granting the benefit of the doubt. The requirement for a pre-deposit was waived due to the small amount involved. en-us Tue, 21 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Sep 2024 16:19:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457907 The appeal was allowed, and the penalty order under section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, was set aside. The Chairman concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the contravention charge against the appellant, who had received Rs. 44,000 from a non-resident brother. The decision emphasized the lack of substantial evidence and acknowledged the appellant's compliance with exchange regulations, granting the benefit of the doubt. The requirement for a pre-deposit was waived due to the small amount involved. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 21 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457907