TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing order is delivered by Justice Subhash Samvatsar, Chairperson, Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange: 2. This Revision petition is filed by the Director of Enforcement under Section 52(4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 against order dated 22-11-2001 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi in Order No. SDE/KRB/III/15/2001 whereby the Adjudicating Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was issued to the respondents on 23-10-1992. The Adjudicating Authority after appreciating the evidence on record exonerated the respondent by the impugned order which is under challenge in this revision. 3. The first contention raised by Shri B. Naveen Kumar, ALA is that the Adjudicating Authority has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. He also contended that the Adjudicating Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be made sole basis of imposing penalty has laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Solanki v. Union of India - (2008) 16 SCC 537 = 2009 (233) E.L.T. 157 (S.C.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 337 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held that retracted statement cannot be made sole basis of imposing penalty under FERA. 4. After hearing the parties, I find sufficient force in the arguments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in case of Uttam Namdeo Mahale v. Vithal Deo and Ors. - (1997) 6 SCC 73 in absence of fixation of limitation powers should be exercised within reasonable time. 5. In the present case, the Adjudicating Authority has exonerated the respondents on the ground that there is no evidence against them except the retracted statement. It is true that the Adjudicating Authority has given finding that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
