TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsation in favour of the appellant which shows lack of bonafide on the part of the appellant. The order was passed long back on 12.02.04 where the appellant has shown total defiance towards judicial order where equity does not lie in his favour. Looking towards this situation this appeal is liable to be dismissed. Written submissions stated to be filed by the Petitioner on 15th September, 2009 are not on record of the Tribunal. However, in view of the endorsement even if it is accepted that the written submissions in para-7 submitted that without prejudice to the submissions the Petitioner herein prayed for time of two months to comply with the order dated 12th February, 2004, the same would not enure to the benefit of the Petitioner in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (in short FEMA ) be not held against the Petitioner. 3. The Adjudicating Authority passed the order on 27th August, 2003 imposing a penalty of ₹ 28,26,000/- on the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Respondent No.2 along with an application seeking waiver of the pre-deposit of the penalty amount. The Respondent No.2 directed the Petitioner to deposit 50% of the penalty amount within three months vide order dated 12th February, 2004. Much beyond three months having elapsed, on 13th October, 2004 the Petitioner filed an application for withdrawal of the order dated 12th February, 2004 with a request by the Petitioner to afford re-hearing in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up for hearing and the counsel for the Petitioner was not available the Tribunal passed the following order; even in the absence of the counsel for the Petitioner, considering the merits of the matter: The following order is delivered by Km. Vijay Laxmi, Member, Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange: 2. This appeal is filed against Adjudication Order No.ADJ/1013/AD (PKB)/B/2003 dt. 27.08.03 passed by Asst. Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai imposing a penalty of ₹ 28,26,000/- (Rupees twenty eight lakhs twenty six thousand only) against M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. for contravention of the provisions of Section 8 (3) 8 (4) of FERA, 1973 for not producing evidence for import of goods against remittance of foreign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antial bearing which was not available earlier despite due diligence. (c) similar grounds. 3. The appellant has utterly failed to establish either of the above mentioned grounds where the application for review is rejected. It would be relevant here to mention the relevant provisions of the FERA, 1973, regarding pre-deposit of penalty amount for filing of appeal by the appellant for better appreciation of the legal position which are produced below: 52. Appeal to Appellate Board (1) The Central Government may by Notification in the Official Gazette constitute an Appellate Board .. (2) Any person aggrieved by such order may (on payment of such fee as may be prescribed and), after depositing the sum imposed by way of penalty unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. An order is passed accordingly. Record of this appeal may be consigned to Record Room. 5. The decision in Ram Kirpal vs. Union of India, 1998 (103) E.L.T. 8 (Guj.) relied upon by the Petitioner dealt with the inherent jurisdiction of every Tribunal to correct any error committed by it so that justice is done both to the assessee and the revenue. It drew a distinction between the procedural review and a review on merits and held that review does not confer power to re-hear matter on merits. There is no dispute to the propositions laid down in the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner however, suffice it is to state by the application on which the impugned order dated 11th November, 2009 was passed by a majority op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
