9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Special Director Enforcement, Bangalore in case No. T-4/-BAN/2009 whereby Special Director has imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- on the company appellant in Appeal No. 176 of 2010 and Rs. 51,00,000/- each on appellant in appeal Nos. 197 and 198 of 2010 who are the Directors of the said company. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company was incorporated in 1966 having and is a 100% export oriented unit involved in Software Development and also registered as a STPI with software technology park in India, Karnataka. Initially Shri G.K. Ananthram and his wife Jayalakshmi were the share holders and Directors of the company. They sold their shares to Mr. Kishan Ananthram and his wife Brindala Ananthram who are non- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ananthram and his wife Brindala Ananthram hence this appeal. 6. The first contention raised by the learned counsel of the appellant is that there is no mens rea for commission of offence apart from that he contended that no dividend are paid to the share holders and thus there is no loss of foreign exchange to the company as there is no remittance to person resident outside India. He also contended that the show cause notice be barred by limitations. Shri Naveen Kumar on the other hand supported the penalty. 7. Before going to the other issues, we will like to deal with the question of limitation as the said question goes to the root of the matter. Admittedly the alleged offence has taken place in the year of 1997, 1999 when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred only once in 1997 and bonus shares were issued in the year 1999 without permission from RBI and therefore the said offence cannot be said to be continued offence. 10. The next contention of Shri Naveen Kumar is that by filing of an application for compounding the appellants have admitted the violation and therefore now they cannot take the plea of limitation. We are afraid that within this argument is also not tenable because the admission does not save the limitation. By expiry of limitation, the right to recover is not lost but what is lost is the remedy to enforce the said right through court of law. Thus what is lost is the remedy. In such a situation even assuming that there is a clear admission on the part of appellant of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
