TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its case as if it was an appeal which is beyond the scope of the Order XLVLL Rule 1 CPC and as such the review application is liable to be dismissed. An application for review cannot be entertained only for the purpose of rehearing of the case [See K.A. ANSARI & ANR Versus INDIAN AIRLINES LTD [2008 (11) TMI 668 - SUPREME COURT] - FPA-FE-27/KOL/2014, FPA-FE-28/KOL/2014, FPA-FE-29/KOL/2014 - - - Dated:- 18-10-2017 - Justice Manmohan Singh Chairman And Shri Anand Kishore Member For the Appellant : Mr. J.K Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Prashant Pandey, Legal Consultant JUDGMENT Misc. Application 14/2016 in FPA-FE-27, 28 and 29/KOL/2014 1. By this order we propose to decide the Miscellaneous Application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposition of penalty; whether the evidence adduced by the E.D is sufficient for proving contraventions or not; whether any contraventions occurred of the provisions of FEMA by the appellants or not are some of the issues which require in depth scrutiny. We are refraining from recording any finding on these issues lest it may influence the final outcome. 10. In view of the above discussions and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage. We are of the view that it will be fair just and proper that the applicants/appellants be allowed partial waiver as no case of complete waiver is made out on the basis of case laws. Benara Valves Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (2006) 13 SCC 347, Monotosh Saha Vs. Sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of this order and all the applicants/appellants further furnish reliable security for 20% of the amount of total penalty imposed against each of the applicant/appellants within the period. No order as to costs. List on 20.09.2016 for reporting compliance. 3. The learned counsel for the Appellant is trying to re-argue the matter on merits and is trying to re-agitate the same plea which were raised at the time of deciding the said application. The question before us as to whether the review filed by the appellant is maintainable or the party is allowed to re-agitate the same issue on merit at the time of the case as well as the impugned order dated 16th July, 2016. 4. It is pertinent to mention that the order dated 16.07.2016 has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
