https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457916 Separate foreign exchange contraventions could not support a single composite penalty unless the liability was apportioned to each charge; a penalty order that failed to identify the quantum attributable to each alleged breach was legally unsustainable. The alleged contraventions under sections 8(1), 9(1)(a), 14 and 16(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 also depended on proof of the specific statutory ingredients: actual payment or transfer, ownership or holder status in foreign exchange, and a legally established due date or direction for receipt. On the facts described, those ingredients were not proved. A sole proprietary concern was not a company or association of persons for section 68, so penalty against it on that basis could not stand. en-us Fri, 10 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Sep 2024 16:46:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457916 Separate foreign exchange contraventions could not support a single composite penalty unless the liability was apportioned to each charge; a penalty order that failed to identify the quantum attributable to each alleged breach was legally unsustainable. The alleged contraventions under sections 8(1), 9(1)(a), 14 and 16(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 also depended on proof of the specific statutory ingredients: actual payment or transfer, ownership or holder status in foreign exchange, and a legally established due date or direction for receipt. On the facts described, those ingredients were not proved. A sole proprietary concern was not a company or association of persons for section 68, so penalty against it on that basis could not stand. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 10 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457916