Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Wadhwa Enterprises, Shri Sanjeev Wadhwa, Shri Rajeev Wadhwa Versus The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi

2017 (10) TMI 460 - ATFEMA

Condonation of Delay - reason i.e. the premises of the appellant firm lying locked and shifting of residence by the appellants as well as the chamber of the counsel of the appellant has been stated - Held that:- As stated earlier, by an order dated 11th May, 2009 this Tribunal had directed the appellants to deposit 20% of their amount of penalty along with submissions of unconditional bank guarantee of remaining 30% within a period of 45 days from 11th May, 2009 failing which the appeal would st .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ts. As such, the above appeals/applications are dismissed. No sufficient cause has been shown in the applications. The grounds taken in the applications are vague and general in nature. - However, in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay we still gave the offer to the appellant's counsel that in case the appellant complies with the order of this Tribunal dated 11.05.2009 and deposit 20% of their amount of penalty along with submissions of unconditional bank guarantee of remaining 30% .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/DLI/2009, FPA-FE-54/DLI/2009 - Dated:- 4-10-2017 - Justice Manmohan Singh, Chairman And Shri Anand Kishore Member For the Appellants : Ms. Sangita Bhayana, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Yadav, Legal Consultant JUDGEMENT FPA-FE-52/DLI/2009, FPA-FE-53/DLI/2009 & FPA-FE-54/DLI/2009 In the instant case, an application under Section 3(a), 4, 8 & 42 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and Regulation No.5 (i) of Foreign Exchange Management (Realization, Repatriation and Sur .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

personal penalty of ₹ 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores only) each on Shri Sanjeev Wadhwa & Shri Rajeev Wadhwa, Partners in M/s. Wadhwa Enterprises under Section 13 (1) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 for having contravened the provisions of Section 3 (a) and 4 of FEMA, 1999 and absolute confiscation of foreign exchange namely US$.166, UK Pound 735, UAE Dirhams 305, Canadian $.750, French Francs 300, DM 200, Dutch Guilder 7000, US$.(TC) 400 and Indian currency amounting to  .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e said imposition of penalty of ₹ 15,07,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Crores and Seven Lakhs Only) and confiscation of currencyreferred to above-, the appellant had filed an appeal for exempting from depositing the said penalty as pre-deposit before the appeal could be heard on merits. The above appeal filed by the appellant had been decided by this Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 52/2009 to 54/2009 by order dated 11th May, 2009 which is - for the sake of convenience - reproduced below: Date : 11th May .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y US $ 814612.50 (including TCS), Can $ 126100 DM, 1587937, UE Dirham 566390, UK Pound 160465, SF 40022, FF 9300, HK $ 12440, Dutch Guilder 116243, SR 86900 Lira 196221, Yen 21830, Kuwaiti Dinar 1300, Omani Riyal 112, Bahrain Dinar 60, Aus. $ 5300, Malaysian $ 300 and Singapore $ 17 are recovered from the premises of appellant firm in appeal No. 52/09. Also some notings found in the seized documents are recovered where different amounts of foreign currency are described along with their respecti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at restricted money changer license of the appellant is now cancelled and appellant firm has no license but when we questioned why the address of the closed business is given by the appellants in the memo of appeal, she could not give any satisfactory answer. It is a fact to be noted that appellants have not given their residential address in the memo of appeal but are pleading that after closing of firm s business, they are procuring supply orders for making exports. The penalty amount for reco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot faintly established. The matter with regard to undue hardship on the question of pre-deposit of penalty is well settled by the judgment of Apex Court in (1) Benara Valves Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2006 (2) Scale 303 and; (2) Monotosh Saha v. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate; 2008 (11) Scale 603. In these judgments Hon ble Supreme Court has held in short that dispensation should be allowed wherever impugned order is (1) ex facie bad which cannot withstand legal scrutiny; .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

long with submission of unconditional bank guarantee of remaining 30% within a period of 45 days from today failing which these appeals will be dismissed on this ground alone. The remaining 50% amount of penalty is dispensed with subject to above compliance. These appeals are fixed for hearing on 28th July, 2009. (R. N. PODDAR) Member (O. P. NAHAR) Chairperson Aggrieved by the above decision by this Tribunal, the appellant had approached the Hon‟ble High Court for dispensation of pre-trial .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent (Enforcement Directorate). Affidavit in terms of order dated 17.09.2009 passed an application for waiver of pre-deposit has not been filed by the appellants/petitioners. Copy of the order dated 17.11.2009 passed by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in writ petition No. 10878/2009- Wadhwa Enterprises and Ors. Vs. UOI and Ors. has been filed by the respondent showing that the petition was dismissed in default. The demand noticed dated 23.07.2014 issued to the appellant has also been filed along wit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ears that the appellants have lost interest in further prosecution of the appeals. In this view of the matter the appellants are dismissed. (Dr. H. K. Mudgil) Member (Justice Vinay Kumar Mathur) Chairperson In the present application for Restoration and Condonation of Delay, the applicant had pleaded that they were not aware of the decision of this Tribunal as they had not received any notice due to the reason that the premises of the appellant were lying locked and they had also shifted their r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

his counsel on enquiry from the concerned officer of this Hon ble Tribunal came to know that the appeal has been dismissed on 05.09.2014 by Hon ble Mr. Justice V. K. Mathur, Chairperson and Hon ble D. K. Mudgil, Member. The counsel for the appellant firm did not receive any notice from this Hon ble Tribunal as her chamber shifted from Patiala House Court to Hon ble High Court of Delhi. Even in the application for Condonation of Delay, the aforesaid reason i.e. the premises of the appellant firm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version