TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought to the notice of the Tribunal that banks now a days provide bank guarantee only when the entire deposit is made to it, the Tribunal stopped demanding bank guarantee from the parties at the time of disposal of the applications for stay and waiver from pre-deposit. Demanding a bank guarantee in view of the poor financial conditions of an appellant in my view may tantamount to deprivation of the statutory right to appeal and for all practical purposes it will amount to demanding the deposit of entire amount of penalty imposed through the adjudication order. The case laws relied upon by the ld. counsel for the respondent justifying the order of modification of furnishing of corporate guarantee in place of bank guarantee. It may be pertine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been moved for review of the order dated 12-1-2015 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 24/2012. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the review petition are that, aggrieved from the Adjudication Order dated 8-9-2004 whereby the appellant-company which was earlier functioning in the name and style of M/s. Advanced Radio Masts Ltd. was held guilty for contravention of Sections 8(3) and 8(4) of FERA, 1973, r/w Para 7A.20(i) of Exchange Control Manual while the Managing Director Mr. Warlu was held guilty for contravention of Section 68(1) r/w Section 68(2) of FERA, 1973. A consolidated penalty of ₹ 30 lakhs was imposed. An application for stay and waiver from pre-deposit of penalty was moved which was disposed of by this Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e period for furnishing the security has also been made. 4. After hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the communication which was received by the appellant from various banks stating their inability to provide bank guarantee without the deposit of the amount for which bank guarantee was being sought. The Tribunal vide its order dated 12-1-2015 allowed the modification application with the direction to the appellant to instead furnish corporate guarantee of the balance 85% of the penalty imposed through impugned order within a period of 30 days. The order dated 25-11-2014 was modified to this limited extent. 5. The instant review petition has been filed by the Enforcement Directorate for review of the modified order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -company has submitted detailed evidence in proof of its precarious financial conditions which was taken into consideration while passing order dated 25-11-2014 whereby the application for stay and waiver was disposed of. Submission is that an amount of ₹ 4,50,000/- as directed by the Tribunal has been deposited and the respondent has approached the Tribunal to allow it to furnish corporate guarantee in place of bank guarantee on the ground that several banks whom the respondent-company approached insisted pre-deposit of 100% of the bank guarantee amount for issuing bank guarantee. The respondent-company has filed copies of the letters issued by the banks in support of its contention. Further submission is that after considering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent to accept personal bond instead of bank guarantee till disposal of the appeal. Further submission is that in the matter of Royal Insulatation (P) Ltd. v. CTO, Chennai, the Hon ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 1384/2005, dated 21-7-2005 has modified the order passed by the single judge wherein entire tax demand was directed to be paid in cash and instead directed that the petitioner should furnish personal bond for the amount of tax. On the basis of the above it has been prayed that the review petition may be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submission of ld. legal consultant as well as ld. counsel for the respondent/appellant and have also perused the record. It is a settled legal position as has been filed in the case of Col. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may tantamount to deprivation of the statutory right to appeal and for all practical purposes it will amount to demanding the deposit of entire amount of penalty imposed through the adjudication order. The case laws relied upon by the ld. counsel for the respondent justifying the order of modification of furnishing of corporate guarantee in place of bank guarantee. It may be pertinent to mention here that the corporate guarantee has been filed in compliance and must have been accepted, therefore, also the application is misconceived. 9. It may be observed that moving such applications and contending that the Tribunal has deviated from the routine procedure without any ground amounts to scandalizing the Tribunal attempt to lower its ima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
