TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same set of documents cannot be said that the person who is alleged to have aided and abetted the main accused has violated the provisions of law - penalty levy cannot be sustained - in favour of assessee. - FEMA APPEAL NO.1 OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 2-8-2012 - J.P. DEVADHAR AND R.Y. GANOO, JJ. Mr. Zal Andhyarujunha i/b. Vigil Juris for the appellant. Mr. A.J. Rana, senior Advocate with Mrs. S.V.Bharucha for the respondent. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) 1) This appeal was admitted on 10th August, 2007 on the following questions of law :- (1) Whether the appellate Tribunal misdirected itself in ignoring its own decision in connected persons cases wherein the main accused viz. Om Prakash Jalan, Sanjay Jala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cs in view of adjudicating authority having exonerated the appellant ? (6) Whether the appellate Tribunal was justified in imposing penalty of Rs.15 lacs without giving any reason, basis, justification for arriving at the said amount in view of the fact that there is a power imposing a penalty not exceeding 5 times or Rs.five thousand ? (7) Whether on the facts of the case the appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that a revision could lie against the order of the adjudicating authority when the order was appealable and the revision was filed after a period of 18 months ? 2) The proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 [ FEMA for short] were initiated against the appellant for the alleged violation of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the present appeal is filed. 7) Counsel for the appellant submitted that when the main accused are discharged of the liability on the ground that the charges have not been proved, the Tribunal could not have imposed the penalty upon the appellant who was alleged to have aided and abetted the main accused in violating the provisions of FERA. Counsel for the revenue, however, supported the order passed by the Tribunal. 8) It is not in dispute that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal against the three main accused on 31st March, 2004 whereby it is held that they have not violated the provisions of law has attained finality. If the main accused are relieved of the charges and the Tribunal has held that no satisfactory evidence ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
