TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to as the FERA ). 2. It is the case of the appellants that the order passed by the Tribunal was bad in law and is liable to be set aside on three counts; i.e. (i) The Show Cause Notice issued to the appellant by the Enforcement Directorate was without any cause of action and without application of mind, which fact stands admitted by the Directorate in the order dated 8.6.04. (ii) The revision petition was filed by an unauthorized person that too after a period of more than one and half year of the order of the Enforcement Directorate despite availability of the appeal remedy for which limitation prescribed is of 45 days as provided under FEMA. (iii) The proceedings were initiated on a misreading of the Memorandum and Article of Association of the appellant company which clearly goes to show that it was a company which was engaged in the business of oil exploration and was not a company which needed prior permission of RBI for investing in the shares of a NRI company as an exception to the general rule regarding investment of money through the Directorate. 3. Respondents have not filed any counter to the petition despite opportunities granted. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any intention of the notices to engage in the business of oil exploration. The objectives are, inter alia, manufacturing, trading etc. of equipments used in the business of oil exploration , and providing services and consultancy in the filed of oil exploration. The relevant item in the list of prohibited activities as per Annexure A to Regulation 2 of Schedule I of FEMA 20/2002 RB dated 03.05.2000 reads ------- 4. Petroleum including exploration/ refinery/ marketing. It does not prohibit non-residents from investing in a company engaged in manufacturing, trading, etc. of equipments used in oil exploration or providing services and consultancy in the field of oil exploration. To sum up, the charge against the notices that they did not take prior permission of the Govt. with respect to the FDI in the equity shares of the Noticee company is not sustainable. ORDER In view of my above findings, I drop the charge against the notices. SEALED AND SIGNED AT NEW DELHI THIS 08th DAY of JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR. (S.SUBBIAH) DEPUTY DIRECTOR 5. This order clearly shows that the appellant was not a company involved in the business of oil explora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vour of the Deputy Legal Advisor of the Directorate of Enforcement which order reads as under: Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue ORDER 23rd February, 2009 Subject: Authorization in favour of the Deputy Legal advisers of the Directorate of Enforcement for filing the Revision Petitions/ Review Application before the erstwhile Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (FERA Board) now the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi reg. The Central Government in exercise of its powers under Sub-Section (2) of Section 32 and sub-section (6) of Section 19 read with sub-section (4) and clause (a) of sub-section (5) of Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999) hereby authorizes the Deputy Legal Advisers of the Directorate of Enforcement for filing the Revision Petitions/ Review Applications etc. on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement before the erstwhile Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (FERA Board) now the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange in cases arising from the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973) and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors. 12. It is submitted that in the present case since the appeal could have been filed after 45 days the revision if at all was to be filed should have been filed within the same period of filing the revision after 1 and a half year could not be justified. 13. Respondents have relied on another judgment to rebut the contentions made by the appellants on the point of limitation delivered by this Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prem Khanna 125 (2005) DLT 249 wherein it has been held: 8. So far as the submission of the respondent that the proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange were not maintainable under Section 52(4) of FERA or were time barred, the same were raised even before the Appellate Tribunal and answered in the negative and in the opinion of this Court rightly so having regard to the scope of Section 52(4) of FERA. This Court does not subscribe to the view that the proceedings under Section 52(4) of FERA are not in the nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
