<?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>2025 (1) TMI 852 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764788</link>
    <description>Review is confined to the narrow grounds in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, and cannot be used to reargue an order or substitute a rehearing. The tribunal noted that prior acquittal, absence of prosecution, and earlier release of seized money were not new facts, and did not justify waiver or modification of the pre-deposit direction. It also reiterated that adjudication proceedings are independent of criminal prosecution and proceed on the preponderance of probability. Because the conditional pre-deposit requirement and security direction were not complied with within the extended time, the appeals remained not maintainable and were dismissed, along with the review applications.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2025 17:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=789953" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 852 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764788</link>
      <description>Review is confined to the narrow grounds in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, and cannot be used to reargue an order or substitute a rehearing. The tribunal noted that prior acquittal, absence of prosecution, and earlier release of seized money were not new facts, and did not justify waiver or modification of the pre-deposit direction. It also reiterated that adjudication proceedings are independent of criminal prosecution and proceed on the preponderance of probability. Because the conditional pre-deposit requirement and security direction were not complied with within the extended time, the appeals remained not maintainable and were dismissed, along with the review applications.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764788</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>