<?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>1992 (9) TMI 386 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457960</link>
    <description>An appeal under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was subject to a statutory pre-deposit of the penalty amount, unless dispensation was obtained on undue hardship. Where the appellant failed to deposit the penalty despite directions and an extension, the appellate authority could not proceed to examine the merits. The appeal was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2024 18:17:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (9) TMI 386 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457960</link>
      <description>An appeal under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was subject to a statutory pre-deposit of the penalty amount, unless dispensation was obtained on undue hardship. Where the appellant failed to deposit the penalty despite directions and an extension, the appellate authority could not proceed to examine the merits. The appeal was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457960</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>