9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (8) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at a price of 2,100 Kuwaiti dinars and payable in three annual instalments. The Additional Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras, adjudicated the proceedings against the appellant and found that the appellant had purchased two engines and got them fitted to two motor vessels and that the agreement for the third engine was also concluded without obtaining the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. Thereby it contravened sections 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, for short "the repealed Act". In this behalf admittedly this contravention was discovered on a raid conducted on the premises of the appellant on October 4, 1974. In consequence of discovery, a notice was issued on October 11, 1974, and not having been satisfied with the explanations, a show-cause notice was issued on October 18, 1975, an explanation was given by the appellant who was found to have committed the contravention of section 5(1)(a) and (b) and penalty was imposed on July 5, 1977. On appeal, while by order dated October 17, 1978, the Appellate Board confirmed the penalties, it reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 37,500. Questioning the legality thereof, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) of section 12, section 17, section 18-A or section 18-B or of any rule, direction or of order made thereunder, he shall - (a)be liable to such penalty not exceeding three times the value of the foreign exchange in respect of which the contravention has taken place, or five thousand rupees, whichever is more, as may be adjudged by the Director of Enforcement in the manner hereinafter provided, or (b)upon conviction by a court, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." Section 50 of the Act provides for penalty thus : "If any person contravenes any of the provisions of this Act (other than section 13, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 18 and clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 19) or of any rule, direction or order made thereunder, he shall be liable to such penalty not exceeding five times the amount or value involved in any such contravention or five thousand rupees, whichever is more, as may be adjudged by the Director of Enforcement or any other officer of Enforcement not below the rank of an Assistant Director of Enforcement specially empowered in this behalf by order of the Central Government (in e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of section 81(2) of the Act read with section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the power of the respondents to investigate and enforce the liability or penalty incurred under the repealed Act is saved, though the Act 7 of 1947 has been repealed under subsection (2) of section 81 of the Act. The contention of the appellant is that after the Act had come into force in 1973, the repealed Act is a dead corpse and no life could be blown into it with the aid of section 81(2) of the Act or section 6 of the General Clauses Act. We find no force in the contention. The effect of the repealed Act by operation of clause (e) of section 6 of the General Clause Act read with sub-section (2) of section 81 is that, though the Act obliterates the operation of Act 7 of 1947, despite its repeal, the penalty, liability, forfeiture or prosecution for acts done while the repealed Act was in force were kept alive, though no action thereunder was taken when the repealed Act was in force. The rights acquired or accrued or the liabilities incurred or any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred during its operation are kept alive. Investigations to be made or any remedy which may have been available bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trary intention. It merely reiterated the earlier law operating in the field. Therefore, clause (d) of section 6 of the General Clauses Act gets attracted to the acts done or the penalties incurred or forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of an offence already committed before the repealed enactment, though no criminal proceedings have been actually initiated under the repealed enactment before its repeal. In Tiwari Kanhaiyalal v. CIT [1975] 100 ITR 5 (SC) ; [1975] 4 SCC 101, where prosecution was laid after the repeal of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the contention raised was that the savings clause in section 297 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not save the punishment incurred under the repealed Act. Therefore, recourse to section 6 of the General Clauses Act cannot be had was negatived by this court and it was held that the repeal had not effected the liability incurred under section 52 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and it continued even after its repeal. The same view was reiterated in CIT v. Shah Sadiq and Sons [1987] 166 ITR 102 (SC) ; [1987] 3 SCC 516. Accordingly, we hold that despite the repeal of the Act 7 of 1947, by operation of section 6 of the Genera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
