9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Penalty imposed for contravention of sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(d) of FER Act. 2. Receipt of gift cheques from NRE account without permission. 3. Burden of proof on appellants regarding love and affection with donor. 4. Application of statutory provisions in the case. 5. Rejection of arguments based on the Remittances of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunity and Exemption) Act, 1991. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves five appeals against an Adjudication Order imposing penalties for contravention of sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(d) of the FER Act. The appellants received gift cheques from an NRE account without proper permission, leading to the penalties. The appeals were taken up for final disposal on merits. 2. The arguments presented by the appellants included the contention that the receipt of gift cheques from an NRE account was allowed under the Remittances of Foreign Exchange and Investment Act, 1991. They claimed that no outflow of foreign currency occurred, and thus, the penalties were unjustified. However, the tribunal found the arguments unconvincing and raised questions about the nature of the relationship between the donors and appellants. 3. The burden of proof regarding the love and affection between the donors and appellants was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The tribunal highlighted that the appellants failed to provide sufficient explanation for the high-value gifts received. The judgment emphasized the need for a natural connection between individuals for such gifts, which was lacking in this case. The tribunal applied legal principles regarding burden of proof and presumption of facts to analyze the situation. 4. The judgment also discussed the application of statutory provisions, noting that the Remittances of Foreign Exchange and Investment Act, 1991, did not exempt the appellants from the provisions of the FER Act. The tribunal rejected arguments based on statutory protection and reaffirmed the applicability of sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(d) of the FER Act in the case. 5. Finally, the tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeals for lack of merit. It concluded that the penalties imposed were reasonable and correct, considering the contravention of the FER Act. The judgment emphasized the need for appellants to provide adequate explanations and evidence in such cases to avoid adverse presumptions. The arguments based on statutory provisions were rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
|
