Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Case Laws
Home Case Index FEMA Tri FEMA - Tri
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

FEMA - Tribunal - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 84 Records

  • 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 (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 (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


  • 2015 (2) TMI 460 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI

    TRIVENI CARPETS INDUSTRIES Versus ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

    Imposition of penalty jointly and severally - failure to take reasonable steps for repatriation of export proceeds of US 23580.02 in respect of goods exported under 3 GRIs - Held that - While going through the order of penalty, I have noted that there is hardly any discussion on the role of the partners that led to non-realisation of the export proceeds of the 3 GRs and the ld. adjudicating officer has not arrived at any finding to show that the ....... + More


  • 2015 (2) TMI 415 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI

    SAMPATRAJ R. SETH Versus SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

    Contravention of the provisions of Section 9(1)(b), 9(1)(d) and Section 64(2) r/w Section 9(1)(d) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Imposition of personal penalty - violation under Section 51 of FERA, 1973 - whether the adjudicating authority has given the appellant an opportunity of cross-examining the mahazar witnesses and the person who recorded the voluntary statement of the appellant - Held that - Sh. Kiran S. Javali, Counsel for th....... + More


  • 2014 (12) TMI 1225 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI

    Space Age Polymers P. Ltd. Versus Addl. Dir., Enforcement Directorate

    Waiver of penalty - Held that - The fact that the company has almost closed business and is incurring losses continuously has not been disputed by the respondent. Prima facie the audit reports are in conformity with the arguments advanced that the company is incurring financial losses regularly. Considering the facts and circumstances as discussed above and in view of the case laws Special Director of Enforcement v. Anil Aggarwal and Anr. 2009 (3....... + More


  • 2014 (12) TMI 1190 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI

    Jaipur IPL Cricket P. Ltd. Versus Sl. Dir. of Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai

    Waiver of pre-deposit - Proceedings under FEMA - Difference of opinion between the members of the tribunal - Scope of the reference made in case of difference of opinion of two Hon ble members under Section 31 of FEMA, 1999 - Held that - It is not open for the Chairperson/third member to re-write the judgment/order, according to his understanding. He can not disagree with the findings of both the Hon ble Members but has to agree with one of the f....... + More


  • 2014 (10) TMI 885 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI

    P.K. Bagaria Versus Special Dir., Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi

    Condonation of delay - Held that - From the perusal of the Impugned Orders that proceedings were held ex parte. The show cause notices were served by affixation. The cause for delay in instituting the appeal after a gap of more than seven years appears to us to be sufficient and convincing. There is no proof on record that the show cause notices or the Adjudication Orders were duly served upon the applicants/appellants. The delay condonation appl....... + More


1
 
 
 
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version