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 →

Shri P. Narayan Iyer Versus The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai

2017 (11) TMI 618 - ATFEMA

Non-realisation of export sale proceeds - Proceedings as contemplated under Section 18(2) & 18(3) read with Section 68(1) & 68(2) of FERA - Held that:- It is evident that the Appellant joined as Director solely in the capacity of advisory role and was specifically excluded from the day to day operations of the company as evidenced from the correspondence. There cannot be any adverse inference against the Appellant‟s role as to its involvement in the exports or realization of the proceeds. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

with the company. This fact has been clearly acknowledged by the Adjudicating Authority while passing the impugned order. Yet the Adjudicating Authority chooses to impose the penalty on the Appellant. Having found nothing against the Appellant, the Adjudicating Authority ought not to have imposed the penalty. - In the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority found nothing against the Appellant, however, the Special Director observes erroneously that the Appellant ought to have exercised due .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Shri Prashant Pandey, Legal Consultant JUDGEMENT FPA-FE-39/CHN/2014 1. The appellant has filed the above referred appeal under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 against Order No. SDE/KRUB/02/2014 dated 28.03.2014, passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the said Act on various following grounds. 2. The brief facts are that the Appellant received the Show Cause Notice, being No. T-4/21M/97(SC-II) dated 25.09.1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Show Cause Notice ) from t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nsultant in the financial area to various clients on referral basis. 4. One MVR group attached the Appellant and asked him to come on board in the capacity of a Director so as to lend weight to his opinions regarding the company‟s financial recovery. 5. The Appellant was inducted as a Director during the month of March 1996 in M/s Maxwell Exim Foods Ltd. The appellant was inducted in an advisory capacity and not for the purpose of day to day functions of the company as it appears from a le .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he subject to any responsibility with the task of realization of the monies involving the exports by the company when he was made a Director. The Appellant was kept away from the day to day operation and confined to advisory role only. 7. As admitted by the respondent that the transactions in question, with respect to which the Appellant had received the Show Cause Notice, being No. T-4/21M/97(SC-II) dated 25.09.1997 issued by the Special Director of Enforcement, New Delhi, for the non-receipt o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ich the company did not response to that. He by letter dated 05.10.1996, the Appellant resigned from his Directorship as no single Board meeting was convened since the time of his joining; coupled with his ill health. 9. It was stated by the Appellant, when he was called for rendered his full and honest co-operation to the Officers of the Respondent and he did the same. It is stated that even about the innocence of the Appellant as they did not call him after taking his statement unlike the case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Srinivasa Ragahavan arrayed as Noticee No. 14 was also a Director during the same period as that of the Appellant and served for a duration, slightly longer than that of the Appellant. The Special Director in the impugned order concludes: I observe that the Noticee was a Director of the company from March 1996 to December 1996 during which period there was only one export bill due for realization. Considering his short tenure as Director during which due diligence ought to have been taken to 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

. 12. It is a matter of fact that it is the Noticee No. 14 i.e., Shri S. Srinivas Ragahavan who signed the response dated 30.03.1996 (Annexure A-2 supra) in the capacity of Director of Maxwell Exim Foods Ltd. Denying any pending FERA violation. 13. While the Adjudicating Authority chose to exonerate in precedence to Noticee No. 14. 14. The Appellant admittedly resigned on not holding any Board meetings. All these circumstances established that the Appellant has acted cautiously and legitimately .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ant is concerned is perverse and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. 17. The show cause notice alleges breach of Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of FERA on the part of the Appellant and thus rendered himself liable for punishment under Section 68(1) & 68(2). It is rightly stated that the Appellant had no role to play in the exports of goods as the said exports was concluded prior to the Appellant joining as Director. 18. It is evident that the Appellant joined as Director solely in the capacity .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

partment cannot be accepted. 19. The impugned order deals with the violations committed by the persons in charge of MVR Group of companies. The Appellant was neither part of the management managing the affairs of the MVR group of companies nor was he in any way concerned with the company. This fact has been clearly acknowledged by the Adjudicating Authority while passing the impugned order. Yet the Adjudicating Authority chooses to impose the penalty on the Appellant. Having found nothing agains .....

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