Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals Short Notes News 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 61 to 80 of 114 Records

  • 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.


  • 2010 (10) TMI 936

    ... ...
    ... ... ugned order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed having no merits. The appellant is directed to deposit the penalty amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the respondent may recover the same in accordance with law.


  • 2008 (7) TMI 850

    ... ...
    ... ... enalty amount. The appellants are permitted to deposit the balance penalty amount in their respective appeals within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Enforcement Directorate will recover the same in accordance with law.


  • 2008 (6) TMI 550

    ... ...
    ... ... e impugned order is sustained and maintained. The appellants are required to deposit their respective penalty immediately without loss of time on receipt of this order failing which Enforcement Directorate may recover the same in accordance with law.


  • 2008 (5) TMI 698

    ... ...
    ... ... nt has not shown any bona fide in compliance with the said conditional order. Thus no equity lies in favour of the appellant. In such a situation, this appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of judicial order. This appeal may be consigned to record.


  • 2008 (4) TMI 781

    ... ...
    ... ... 0/- to ₹ 30,000/-. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be partly allowed. An order is passed accordingly. The amount of penalty is reduced from ₹ 60,000/- to ₹ 30,000/-. The pre-deposited amount may be appropriated towards penalty.


  • 2001 (10) TMI 1102

    ... ...
    ... ... the Central Government to be represented through the Central Government counsel to have themselves represented as per our suggestion or in any other manner deemed fit by them, by appointing any other counsel. Post these appeals on November 28, 2001.


  • 2001 (4) TMI 476

    Natural justice - Recorded Media - Valuation - Confiscation and redemption fine - E-mail transfers not goods ....... + More


  • 2001 (2) TMI 982

    ... ...
    ... ... in that case was only four days, whereas, the delay in the present case is over two decades and hence, no liberal view can be taken. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, M.P. No. 12/DLI of 2001 also stands dismissed.


  • 2001 (1) TMI 920

    ... ...
    ... ... h regard to the first property, namely, the land measuring 4 cents and 920 sq. links in Elamkulam village and confirm the forfeiture of the residential house bearing No. B-5 at Cochin and dismiss the appeal so far as the second property is concerned.


  • 1999 (10) TMI 702

    ... ...
    ... ... e are, therefore, of the view that rule 11 is not applicable and the order being an order on the merits, cannot be set aside. For all the aforesaid reasons the petition is dismissed that consequently M. P. A. No. 102/MDS of 1999 also stands rejected.


  • 1999 (9) TMI 911

    ... ...
    ... ... ponding properties mentioned in the order dated March 31, 1998, for a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. In the result, the corrigendum dated May 18, 1998, stands set aside and with the above direction, the appeal is dismissed.


  • 1999 (7) TMI 627

    ... ...
    ... ... n, such properties will be liable to be forfeited, even though the transfer took place prior to the issue of notice under section 6 or 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, we uphold the impugned order of the competent authority and dismiss the appeals.


  • 1999 (6) TMI 459

    ... ...
    ... ... s. 9,50,000 in the hands of Ashish P. Patel. No other contentions were raised before us. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the competent authority. We confirm the same and dismiss all the appeals.


  • 1999 (5) TMI 579

    ... ...
    ... ... roperty (Procedure) Rules, 1989, we direct the appellant not to alienate, dispose of, part with possession or create any third party rights over the forfeited property, till the disposal of the proceedings before the Competent Authority after remand.


  • 1999 (5) TMI 578

    ... ...
    ... ... provisions of the SAFEMA apply and there was no jurisdiction in the Competent Authority to proceed to forfeit the properties. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the Competent Authority, Madras, dated September 29, 1995, is set aside.


  • 1999 (4) TMI 580

    ... ...
    ... ... the competent authority was justified in holding that these properties are illegally acquired properties. We see no reason to differ with the findings of the competent authority and we confirm the same. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.


 
 
 
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.