<?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 (12) TMI 437 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457920</link>
    <description>The appeal successfully challenged the penalty under s. 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The Adjudication Order was overturned by the appellate authority, finding the charge legally unsustainable. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 75,000 was ordered to be refunded to the appellant if it had been previously paid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2024 20:24:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771262" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (12) TMI 437 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457920</link>
      <description>The appeal successfully challenged the penalty under s. 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The Adjudication Order was overturned by the appellate authority, finding the charge legally unsustainable. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 75,000 was ordered to be refunded to the appellant if it had been previously paid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457920</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>