Tax Management India. Com
        A knowledge portal that keeps us updated ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals News SMS Articles Highlights
        Home        
 
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases FEMA Tri FEMA - Tri This
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

FEMA - Tribunal - Case Laws

Showing 41 to 60 of 110 Records

  • 2012 (4) TMI 561

    ... ...
    ... ... to review its own order, which has been passed on merits. As a result, the petition is not maintainable neither in facts or in law. In the above circumstances, the prayer for review the order, dated 21-2-2011 is rejected by dismissing the petition.


  • 2012 (2) TMI 471

    ... ...
    ... ... ctive penalty amount within seven days from the date of receipt of this order. In case of failure of appellants in making the payment as aforesaid, the Enforcement Directorate will be entitled to realise the amount of penalty in accordance with law.


  • 2011 (3) TMI 1493

    ... ...
    ... ... ue I deem it fit to set aside the impugned order passed against M/s. Ecco Wasan Shoes (P) Ltd. and Jatinder Wasan by allowing Appeal No. 254/91 and 261/91. In result, Appeal No. 253/91 stands as abated and Appeal Nos. 254/91 and 261/91 stand allowed.


  • 2011 (2) TMI 1533

    ... ...
    ... ... from Shri K.K. Siraju or paid any amount to him. 11. Such a scenario, this appeal No. 91/1992 deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The Impugned Order of penalty amount is set aside. The appeal Nos. 94/1992 and 95/1992 stands dismissed.


  • 2011 (2) TMI 1532

    ... ...
    ... ... se notice on that charge penalty cannot be imposed. The view taken by the Adjudicating Authority cannot be said to be erroneous to call for interference in the impugned order. The revision petition is, therefore, without any merits and is dismissed.


  • 2011 (2) TMI 1529

    ... ...
    ... ... esent appellant with the statement of Mohamed Omar Mistry who says that he has sold foreign exchange to Bhawar Lal Patel and not to Bhawar Lal Jain. In such situation this appeal deserves to be allowed and the Impugned Order of penalty is set aside.


  • 2011 (2) TMI 1302

    Violation of the provisions of Section 9(l)(f)(i) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Imposition of penalty - Delivery of foreign currency to NRI - Held that - appellants have not disclosed their relationship with the person who donated each of them 25,000/- US Dollars. It is not probable that the total stranger will donate such a huge amount to the appellants. Even at the time of hearing of this review application a similar question was a....... + More


  • 2011 (2) TMI 1300

    Violation of the provisions of Section 9(1)(c) - Imposition of Penalty - Held that - retracted statement cannot be made the sole basis of imposing penalty in the absence of any other independent corroborative evidence. Apart from that, making the admission of liability to third person is not an acknowledgement of debt, the acknowledgement should be in favour of the person who has a right to recover it - admission made by the appellant to the Dire....... + More


  • 2011 (2) TMI 1298

    ... ...
    ... ... is appeal is allowed and the Impugned Order is set aside. The appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the penalty as a pre-deposit for hearing the appeal, the same refunded to the appellant within 3 months from the date of service of order.


  • 2011 (2) TMI 1297

    ... ...
    ... ... e available on the record of that case. 7. emsp In such circumstances the impugned order which is based on evidence which is not the part of the record cannot be sustained in the eyes of this appeal stands allowed and the impugned order is set aside.


  • 2011 (1) TMI 1241

    Transfer of share in favour of NRI - Permission for such transfer was not obtained from RBI - Compounding of offence by RBI - Imposition of penalty - Held that - offence has taken place when FERA was in force as it is clearly reflected by the letter of RBI who refused to entertain the application for compounding stating that the violation is under FERA and the provision of compounding was not there under the said Act. The compounding is permissib....... + More


  • 2011 (1) TMI 1239

    Violation of Section 9(1)(b), 9(1)(c) and 9(1)(d) of FERA - Imposition of penalty - Confiscation of seized money - Admissibility of evidence - Held that - Adjudicating Authority has recorded statement of Smt. Gurmej Kaur who in her statement admitted that her husband is staying at Dubai and the documents (loose sheets and diary) is written in the handwriting of her husband who alone can explain the same regarding recovery of Rs. 65,000/- seized f....... + More


  • 2011 (1) TMI 1237

    ... ...
    ... ... appellants have made payment to Rakesh Arora and thus violated provision of Section 9(1) (a) of FERA for receiving gift of Rs. 2,50,000/- to each of them. Hence no interference in the Impugned Order is called for and all the appeals stand dismissed.


  • 2011 (1) TMI 1236

    ... ...
    ... ... rate of Enforcement has erroneously imposed the penalty of Rs. 12,000/- on the appellant. In such circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The Impugned Order is accordingly set aside. The amount of penalty deposited by the appellant be returned to him.


  • 2011 (1) TMI 1235

    ... ...
    ... ... under the instructions of Al Nasir Ghilani who is resident of Dubai. And thus the violation of Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) is proved. I find pruned and therefore, no interference in the impugned order is called for. Both the appeals stand dismissed.


  • 2011 (1) TMI 1234

    ... ...
    ... ... -2009. The said view is followed by this Tribunal while deciding Revision Petition No. 10/2002, dated 13-1-2011 in case of J.K. Jain v. Director of Enforcement. In view of this judgment, the present appeal is not maintainable and dismiss accordingly.


  • 2010 (12) TMI 1079

    ... ...
    ... ... emsp The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs towards the penalty. The said amount shall be subject to the final order passed by the Director of Enforcement and shall be refunded only after final order passed. The appeal stands disposed off.


  • 2010 (10) TMI 1158

    ... ...
    ... ... the gravity of the charge levelled against the appellants. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is confirmed and upheld. The appeals are dismissed having no merits. The pre-deposited amount may be appropriated towards penalty.


  • 2010 (10) TMI 1157

    ... ...
    ... ... msp;Thus on the basis of facts, evidence and circumstances of the case, I am of considered view that the review petition is not maintainable and is rejected. An order is passed accordingly. The record of this petition may be consigned to Record Room


  • 2010 (10) TMI 944

    ... ...
    ... ... the aforesaid circumstances in absence of any legal evidence support the finding arrived at by the adjudicating authority and Director Enforcement Directorate this appeal is allowed and impugned order imposing penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- is set aside.


 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| 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.