TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tand. The above directions of this Tribunal have not been followed by the appellant till date. No sufficient cause has been given by the appellant for not depositing the pre-deposit amount till date. It is also observed that the appellant was aware of the proceedings. As further observed that the reasons given for Condonation of delay in filing the restoration application is rather vague and devoid of merits. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores only) penalty had been imposed on M/s. Wadhwa Enterprises, personal penalty of ₹ 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) on Sanjeev Wadhwa and a 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 ₹ 4,32,900 which had been seized from the business premises of M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 respective rates. The total described amount of foreign currency is substantial which goes up to few lakhs. The recovered papers are 36 in numbers. The impugned order is passed holding the appellants guilty for Contravention of Section 3 (a) dealing in or transferring foreign currency. Also, the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nforcement 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; and (2) sufferance from financial disability. Further, in Monotosh Saha V. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate; 2008 (11) Scale 603 emphasis is also laid on the legal duty casted by Second Proviso of Section 19(1) FEM Act, 1999 upon this Tribunal so as to ensure recovery of the penalty by imposing suitable conditions. Looking towards this factual and legal position and more specifically the pleaded financial difficulty, we permit the appellants to deposit 20% of their respective penalty along with submission o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has also been filed along with report of service that the above notices have shifted to some other place. The notice sent to Ld. Counsel representing the appellants has not been received back unserved. From the perusal of the order sheets it appears that several notices have been issued to the appellants and Ld. Counsel representing them but none could be served. It is apparent that the appellants have been avoiding the service of the notices. The appeals are of the year 2009. We have perused the impugned order also. It appears 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) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay, 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 stand dismissed on this ground alone. The appellant cannot be permitted to change its stand. The above directions of this Tribunal have not been followed by the appellant till date. No sufficient cause has been given by the appellant for not depositing the pre-deposit amount till date. It is also observed that the appellant was aware of the proceedings. It is further observed that the reasons given for Condonation of delay in filing the restoration application is rather vague and devoid of merits. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
