Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases FEMA Tri FEMA - Tri
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

FEMA - Tribunal - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 96 Records

  • 2017 (11) TMI 839 - ATFEMA

    Union of India Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi Versus Shri Tasveer Asgar Khan

    Revision petition u/s 19(6) of FEMA against the order of penalty - contentions of the respondent is that revision petition filed by the revisionist is not maintainable as there is no specific provision in the Act - Held that - As gone through provisions of section 16 which provides for appointment of Central Government Officers as at Adjudicating Authority for holding an inquiry for the purpose of imposing any penalty against the respondent. As i....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 618 - ATFEMA

    Shri P. Narayan Iyer Versus The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

    Non-realisation of export sale proceeds - Proceedings as contemplated under Section 18(2) & 18(3) read with Section 68(1) & 68(2) of FERA - Held that - It is evident that the Appellant joined as Director solely in the capacity of advisory role and was specifically excluded from the day to day operations of the company as evidenced from the correspondence. There cannot be any adverse inference against the Appellant‟s role as to its i....... + More


  • 2017 (10) TMI 908 - ATFEMA

    M/s. Dinmay Exim Avenue (P) Ltd., Roshni Rawat, Dinesh Chandra Rawat Versus The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata

    Review application - Held that - It is pertinent to mention that the order dated 16.07.2016 has not been challenged by the appellant/applicants in the higher court. It has become final. The amount fixed in the said order has not been deposited and it is apparent that the appellants have no intention to deposit the same. - We are of the view that the review application filed by the appellant/review applicant is not maintainable as the applicant ha....... + More


  • 2017 (10) TMI 460 - ATFEMA

    M/s. Wadhwa Enterprises, Shri Sanjeev Wadhwa, Shri Rajeev Wadhwa Versus The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

    Condonation of Delay - reason i.e. the premises of the appellant firm lying locked and shifting of residence by the appellants as well as the chamber of the counsel of the appellant has been stated - Held that - As stated earlier, by an order dated 11th May, 2009 this Tribunal had directed the appellants to deposit 20 of their amount of penalty along with submissions of unconditional bank guarantee of remaining 30 within a period of 45 days from ....... + More


  • 2017 (10) TMI 459 - ATFEMA

    Shri P.R. Ganapathy Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

    Proceedings contemplated under Section 51 of FERA, 1973 - Held that - In the case of Shri Joji Thelliankal, who had acted as an agent to identify NRE account holders, there was no fool proof evidence on record, to establish that Shri Joji Thelliankal received premium amount and thus it was found by the trial court that there is no corroborative evidence except the statements. It was held that no other evidence on the records placed to show that S....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 756 - ATPMLA

    Suman S. Rana Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai

    Forfeiting the properties as order passed under section 7 of the SAFEMA, 1976 - purview of the term associate / relative - connection with alleged illegal activities of the detenu - Held that - The only activities that have been stated in this regard are that the appellant assisted AP-1 to assume the name of Sanjay Srinath Rana and to obtain documents like Ration Card and Passport in the assumed name and that the detenu resided in the residence o....... + More


  • 2017 (5) TMI 852 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE

    Jaipur IPL Cricket (P.) Ltd. Versus Special Director, Mumbai

    Violation of Section 3 of FEMA, 1999 - Held that - In the present case, the remitter and investor are different and are not in accordance with the Regulations made by the Reserve Bank of India under the Act. The remittance 1 and remittance 2 were made by the person other than the investor and are in direct contravention of Regulation 5 of FEMA (Permissible Capital Account Transactions) Regulations, 2000. - From the perusal of record, it is clear ....... + More


  • 2016 (9) TMI 1352 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI

    Mittal Ispat Ltd. Versus Enforcement Directorate

    Contravention of Section 3(d) r/w Section 42(1)(2) of FEMA, 1999 - search - payments in foreign exchange - Held that - No foreign currency has been recovered. There is no corroboration evidence of the fact that the payments allegedly made by the appellants were made as per the instructions from abroad. There is no evidence available to establish that the payments so made were in consideration of foreign exchange so acquired by the appellant compa....... + More


  • 2016 (9) TMI 1344 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI

    Directorate of Enforcement Versus Brig. Kapil Mohan

    Guilty under Sections 18(2) and 18(3) read with Section 58 of FERA, 1973 - liability by a deeming fiction - criminal liability fastened against in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company - Held that - No evidence has been lead by the Enforcement Directorate in the Adjudication Proceedings to the effect that the respondents were in-charge and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Vicarious l....... + More


  • 2016 (9) TMI 352 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE Tribunal

    Prakash Bafna Versus Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement

    Proceedings leveled against co-noticee - appellant was resident outside India - Held that - Nothing incriminating from the raid carried out at the residential and business premises of the appellant could be found. There is no documentary evidence in support of the allegations of the respondent. There is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was involved in any act of alleged purchase and sale of foreign currency. For the alleged credit....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 1341 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI

    Pankaj Gupta Versus Enforcement Directorate

    Contravention of provision of Section 8 of FEMA, 1999 r/w Regulations 9 and 13 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000 - failure to prove the service of either SCN or notice for personal hearing or the service of impugned order upon the appellant - Held that - We are of the view that the respondent has failed to prove the service of either SCN or notice for personal hearing or the service of impugned order ....... + More


  • 2016 (5) TMI 1383 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI

    Enforcement Directorate, Chennai Versus Icomm Tele Ltd.

    Contravention of Sections 8(3) and 8(4) of FERA, 1973 - direction of furnishing corporate guarantee - interpretation in the review petitioner that the corporate guarantee is a business consideration - Held that - The guarantor is bound to indemnify the authority to whom corporate guarantee is furnished. Relationship of business is not a necessary condition. Generally the corporate guarantee is furnished on the basis of overall performance and goo....... + More


  • 2016 (2) TMI 1107 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI

    Norscot Trading (P) Ltd. Versus Enforcement Directorate

    Contravention under Section 8 of FEMA, 1999 - liable for the acts or omissions committed by company representative - Held that - Since the appellant Ole Peter Tollefson has not filed any proof that he actually secured loan from bank in Spain therefore in view of the admission of the execution of the disputed invoice by the appellant, no other inference except that it related to export of building material can be inferred. The appellant company wi....... + More


  • 2016 (2) TMI 480 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI

    M.L. Gupta Versus Special Director of Enforcement

    Levy of penalty for Non realization of export proceeds (foreign exchange) within six months of the date of shipment or within the extended period - Held that - Considering the submission that almost entire sale proceeds have been realized and loss to the exchequer has subsequently been made good therefore, taking a holistic view, we are of the opinion that it will be just and fair in the circumstances that the penalties imposed which are almost h....... + More


  • 2016 (1) TMI 183 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI

    Sun Star Future Wood Ltd. Versus Special Director of Enforcement

    Importers who had acquired foreign exchange from their authorized dealers for the purpose of imports of specified goods but had failed to submit the Exchange Control copy of Bill of Entry in respect of the relevant imports to their authorized dealers - It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that an amount of ₹ 410,550 US was remitted by IDBI by opening L/C (Letter of Credit). The goods were shipped by the foreign seller and arrive....... + More


  • 2015 (12) TMI 1695 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI

    Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. Versus Addl. C.C., Enforcement, Mumbai

    Guilty of contraventions of Section 8(3) and 8(4) of FERA, 1973 r/w Section 49(3) and 49(4) of FEMA, 1999 - Penalty imposed - whether there has been no lapse/FERA violations on the part of the company and the transactions were wrongly reported in BFE due to oversight of the bankers of the company? - Enforcement Directorate creation - Held that - We see no reason to remand the matter back to Adjudicating Authority at this stage when parties have b....... + More


  • 2015 (10) TMI 2684 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI

    G. Rama Raju Versus Special Dir. of Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi

    Contravention of Sections 7 and 8 of FEMA, 1999 read with Regulations 3, 8, 9 and 13 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000 involving export value of US 8,67,275.20 - unrealised GRI forms the authorized dealer had not contacted the Enforcement Directorate - Held that - Since a period of almost 15 years has passed since the transactions took place and the RBI permitted authorized dealer to allow write off i....... + More


  • 2015 (8) TMI 1381 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI

    Rare Creations Ltd. Versus Enforcement Directorate

    Contravention of Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of FERA, 1973 r/w notifications of Central Government dated 1-1-1974 - Held that - Adjudicating Authority was at liberty to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law according to its wisdom independently. However, as a principle of law it cannot be said that judgments in all criminal appeals will ipso facto result in quashing the adjudication proceedings under FERA alike disciplinary procee....... + More


  • 2015 (4) TMI 1217 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY, NEW DELHI

    Dayalbhai K. Ahir Versus Competent Authority, Mumbai

    Applications for additional evidences - denial of natural justice - offence under SAFEMA - Held that - After careful perusal of all the submissions and documents we are satisfied that the Competent Authority decided the case without giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellants to produce all the evidence before him. We are also guided by the fact that upon verification and examination, the submissions about the legal acquisition of the forfe....... + More


  • 2015 (3) TMI 1165 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI

    Connor Information Techno. Ltd. Versus Spl. Dir. of Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi

    Application for amendment in the memo of appeal - Held that - The amendment application appears to have been made bonafidely and through it the appellant wants to bring on record the subsequent developments. Through the proposed amendment, no new cause has been set up by the appellant and is in continuation of the facts which were placed earlier. The subsequent developments are being placed before the Tribunal, so that they may be duly considered....... + More


1
 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version