Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1995 (7) TMI 182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted agricultural equipment worth Rs. 1,92,002.66 and Rs. 1,00,845.00 to M/s. Bacha Inc. Sanfransico California, a subsidiary of the first respondent. The Reserve Bank of India vide its letters dated June 27, 1983 and August 21, 1984, intimated the Directorate of Enforcement that the exporter had failed to realize the export proceeds. Pursuant to the investigation, it was revealed that non-realisation of the export proceeds was to the tune of U.S. dollars 1,81,897.68 and 97,866.00. On February 23, 1988, a notice was issued by the Director, Enforcement Directorate to the first respondent and its partners respondent No. 2 and Mrs. Iqbal Kaur Chadha, requiring them to show cause why adjudication proceedings as contemplated by Section 51 of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it was, inter alia, pleaded that the deposit of the penalty amount would cause hardship to them as they had been suffering losses in business and were not in a position to deposit the penalty amount. This application came to be decided by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board on August 17, 1993. According to the order of the Board, the first and the second respondents were required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- each within sixty days as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal. Not able to deposit the said amount within the time granted by the Board, they moved an application on November 8, 1993, for extension of time and for permitting them to make the payment in instalments. This application was disposed of by the Bo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal. He pointed out that despite the fact that they had violated the order, the Board by its subsequent orders dated December 6, 1993 and March 28, 1994, not only extended the time for making the deposit but also substantially reduced the amount originally directed to be deposited as a condition for hearing the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the first two respondents, however, submitted that the Board while passing the subsequent orders did not re-examine or review the correctness of its earlier order. According to him, the Order of Board dated August 17, 1993 relating to pre-deposit of the penalty amount was in the nature of an interim or interlocutory order and since such orders do not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rovided further that where the Appellate Board is of opinion that the deposit to be made will cause undue hardship to the appellant, it may, in its own discretion, dispense with such a deposit either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it may deem fit. (3) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (2) the Appellate Board may, after making such further inquiry as it deems fit, confirm, modify or set aside the order appealed against and the decision of the Appellate Board shall, subject to the provisions of Section 54, be final and if the sum deposited by way of penalty under sub-section (2) exceeds the amount directed to be paid by the Appellate Board, the excess amount shall be refunded. (4) The Appellate Board may, for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pensing with pre-deposit either unconditionally or subject to certain conditions is not a decision on the merits of the case. Such an order is passed to prevent hardship and to advance justice so that the appellant does not lose his right of appeal for failing to deposit the penalty amount due to reasons beyond his control. For good and valid reasons. the Board can pass orders which have the effect of modifying or altering the interlocutory order relating to pre-deposit of the penalty amount. To hold otherwise, the Board will not be able to pass appropriate orders in a case where such orders are required to be passed having regard to the circumstances of the case and/or the supervening events, which may have crippling effect on the capacity .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates