TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntions. Appeal allowed. - FEMA APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 6-5-2009 - J.H. BHATIA AND F.I. REBELLO, JJ. Jay Deep Mitra and D Lima for the Appellant. V.B. Tiwari, Mrs. N.V. Masurkar and Anchan Shetty for the Respondent. JUDGMENT J.H. Bhatia, J. - The appellant in this Appeal has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Foreign Exchange, dismissing Appeal No. 1206/2004 challenging the order passed by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, on 26-10-2004 imposing penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs on the appellant company for failure to furnish evidentiary proof of utilisation of foreign exchange remitted and for contravention of section 8(3) and 8(4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fice was shifted from Nariman Point to Worli and again with effect from 1-6-2001, the office was shifted to Chembur for which a public notice was issued in "Loksatta" on 14-6-2001. After receipt of the notice, on 8-10-2004, a representative of the appellant appeared before the respondent No. 2 on 15-10-2004 and submitted a letter informing that the appellant had not received any show-cause notice earlier and, therefore, it could not attend. On behalf of the appellant, certain documents were produced and time was sought to file proper reply after consultation with lawyer on the same day the appellant also requested the C F Agent as also UTI Bank to provide details particularly the bill of entry in respect of imports. However, on 28-10-2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 1206 of 2004 before the Appellate Tribunal. The appeal came to be dismissed on 28-7-2008 by the Appellate Tribunal. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. On behalf of the appellant, it was urged that the respondent No. 2 had taken cognizance of the alleged violation of the provisions of FERA after expiry of more than two years after the repeal of the said Act, in violation of section 49 of Foreign Exchange Management Act,1999 ( FEMA ). Secondly, it is contended that the appellant had never received the show-cause notice in 2002 and for the first time, the appellant received the final opportunity notice on 8-10-2004 and thereafter in spite of the request of the appellant, no opportunity was given to produce necessary do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, therefore, there is reason to believe that the said notice must not have been received by the appellant and, therefore, the appellant could not appear in response to that notice. The notice dated 8-10-2004 from the respondent No. 2 was addressed to the appellant at its Chembur address and it was received. As per this notice, the next date of hearing was fixed on 15-10-2004 and it was the last chance. The record also reveals that a representative of the appellant appeared before the respondent No. 2 on 15-10-2004 and submitted a letter dated 14-10-2004 stating that had not contravened any provisions of FERA. A request was made for adjournment. The record also reveals that on 15-10-2004 itself the appellant addressed letters to the differe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
