TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed standing counsel for the appellant undertook to produce one such notification, he failed to do so. That shows, no notification was issued by the Central Government. Thus, in the absence of any notification passed by the Central Government for specifically empowering the Director of Enforcement to enforce the provisions of the Act and delegating him with specific functions under the Act, the appellant herein i.e., Director of Enforcement cannot be treated as aggrieved party and has no locus standi to file this appeal and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is hence liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability and the substantial question of law is accordingly answered against the appellant. - C.M.A.No.1731 of 2003 And CMP.11012 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revision Petition No.36/2001 was filed by the Director of Enforcement before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi. The Tribunal after examining the records, found that the charge against the respondent herein was not proved by the prosecution and agreed with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and accordingly dismissed the Revision. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this court by the Director of Enforcement. 4.The substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is as follows: Whether the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is right in dismissing the Revision Petition without appreciating the materials available on record and without any consideration of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board under that section and only the Central Government can file and prosecute an appeal against the order of the Appellate Board and not any other authority and therefore, the Director of Enforcement cannot be said to be aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Board merely because its order of adjudication has been set aside by the Appellate Board . The same was followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the decision reported in (1985) 6 ECC 55 (Director of Enforcement v. Lal Chand). The Apex Court by applying the views of the Madras and Punjab and Haryana High Courts, observed that the Adjudicating Authority, in the absence of any power conferred upon it by the Central Government, could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
