https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458004 Strict proof is required for penal foreign exchange contraventions: liability under section 9(1)(a) was not established because the evidence did not show that the appellant-companies themselves made or arranged the alleged DM payment, and the provision could not be extended by construction. Section 9(1)(c) also failed because the unsigned letter was only a vague contractual proposal, not a binding acknowledgment of an existing debt or an enforceable right in favour of the non-resident. Contravention under section 16(1) was not proved on the incomplete material relied upon, so the connected penalty under section 68(1) could not stand. en-us Mon, 27 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Oct 2024 13:37:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458004 Strict proof is required for penal foreign exchange contraventions: liability under section 9(1)(a) was not established because the evidence did not show that the appellant-companies themselves made or arranged the alleged DM payment, and the provision could not be extended by construction. Section 9(1)(c) also failed because the unsigned letter was only a vague contractual proposal, not a binding acknowledgment of an existing debt or an enforceable right in favour of the non-resident. Contravention under section 16(1) was not proved on the incomplete material relied upon, so the connected penalty under section 68(1) could not stand. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 27 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458004