<?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 (5) TMI 1141 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770869</link>
    <description>Partial waiver of pre-deposit was granted in a FEMA penalty appeal, with the Tribunal reducing the requirement to 25% of the penalty after finding no sufficient basis for complete waiver on hardship grounds. The moratorium under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code did not stay the penalty proceedings or justify full waiver, because the impugned penalty order and appeal predated the moratorium and the matter was treated as a statutory penalty proceeding rather than a debt-recovery action. The challenge based on an alleged discrepancy in the show cause notice was rejected, as the notice and record clearly disclosed the applicable Foreign Exchange (Deposits) Regulations, 2000 and the variance was non-fatal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 May 2025 08:39:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=822439" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1141 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770869</link>
      <description>Partial waiver of pre-deposit was granted in a FEMA penalty appeal, with the Tribunal reducing the requirement to 25% of the penalty after finding no sufficient basis for complete waiver on hardship grounds. The moratorium under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code did not stay the penalty proceedings or justify full waiver, because the impugned penalty order and appeal predated the moratorium and the matter was treated as a statutory penalty proceeding rather than a debt-recovery action. The challenge based on an alleged discrepancy in the show cause notice was rejected, as the notice and record clearly disclosed the applicable Foreign Exchange (Deposits) Regulations, 2000 and the variance was non-fatal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770869</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>