TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rangement - it is the case of the petitioners that they received a show cause notice as to why penalty should not be imposed under Section 4-I(1)(a) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 for failure to fulfil the export obligations under the two advance licences. - This by itself would not result in holding that no penalty could have been imposed on the petitioners - But this would be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Petitioner. S/Shri R.V. Desai, Sr. Counsel with A.S. Rao, for the Respondent. [Order]. - P.C.: The petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 26th March, 1993 whereby a penalty was imposed on the petitioners in the sum of Rs. 11.00 lacs. The notices were issued both to the company and to the erstwhile Directors. The present petition has been filed at the instance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various replies informed the respondent No. 2 that they were under a new management and not aware of the activities prior to 1981. The matter was old and records were also not available. From time to time request was made for the records. According to the petitioner the records were not made available and finally the impugned order came to be passed on 26th March, 1993. 4. At the time of hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. On behalf of the respondents learned Counsel submits that the petitioners were in default and in these circumstances the order impugned cannot be faulted. 6. In the instant case we are concerned with the company which was wound up and the present management took over the management under the scheme of Compromise Arrangement. This by itself would not result in holding that no penalty could h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
