https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459805 The court allowed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence to sustain the charge under Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant's retracted statement, lacking corroborative evidence, was deemed unreliable. The court criticized the adjudicating officer's reasoning and found the appellant's explanation plausible, noting the usual practice of receiving money through bank drafts. Consequently, the adjudication order was set aside, and the respondent was ordered to refund the Rs. 5,000 adjusted towards the penalty within 45 days. The judgment underscores the necessity of corroborative evidence and credible statements in such cases. en-us Thu, 05 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Dec 2024 11:08:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459805 The court allowed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence to sustain the charge under Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant's retracted statement, lacking corroborative evidence, was deemed unreliable. The court criticized the adjudicating officer's reasoning and found the appellant's explanation plausible, noting the usual practice of receiving money through bank drafts. Consequently, the adjudication order was set aside, and the respondent was ordered to refund the Rs. 5,000 adjusted towards the penalty within 45 days. The judgment underscores the necessity of corroborative evidence and credible statements in such cases. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 05 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459805