TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (1) TMI 190
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 and 53 of 1983, as both of them arise out of the same order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (hereinafter called the Board), dated August 20, 1982. 2. The Enforcement Directorate alleged that during the years 1976-1980, the appellant firm being a person resident of India, entered into an agreement to pay commission and associated itself with one Bhupinder Singh, a person ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tside India by order or on behalf of the person resident outside India during the year 1977, without any general or special permission from the Reserve Bank of India and thereby contravened the provisions of Section 9(1)(d) of the Act, Still another memorandum dated September 19, 1981, was issued to the firm alleging that during the years 1976-80, it made a payment of Rs. 45,500/- to a person resi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t regard were based on the material on record. However, the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Officer on account of the third and the fourth charge was reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 6,000/-. Dissatisfied with the same, two appeals have been filed in this Court. S.A.O. No. 67 of 1982, has been filed on behalf of the appellant firm whereas S.A.O. No. 53 of 1983, has been filed on behalf of the ....