Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (12) TMI 445

portunities have been given to the appellant for appearing/arguing his case and examining the witness but he failed to avail the same. He either did not appear or on the few occasions where he did appear before the adjudicating authority he took adjournment on some plea or the other. We agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that justice is qua both the parties and we do not find any violation by the adjudicating authority in this regard. - Therefore, do not see any reason to grant them the dispensation of the pre-deposit. They have not pleaded anything either on merits of the case or on hardship even when specifically asked by me. With regard to the judgments quoted by the counsel for the appellant on the principles of natu .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ough they were sent notices for personal hearing and cross-examining however they vide their letter dated 31.01.2008 had requested that the hearing and cross-examination be adjourned to 20th February, 2008. But the adjudicating authority did not give them any further chance thereafter and decided the case. Hence neither were they heard nor any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was provided to them thereby violating the principles of natural justice. He relied on the following judgments: a. Virendra Kumar Yadav vs. UOI & Ors., Delhi High Court order dated 19.08.2009. b. Delhi High Court order dated 25.05.2009 in the case of Priya Shah vs. Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi. c. Supreme Court order dated 31.03.2003 in the case of .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

had given them three dates i.e. 06th, 07th & 08th February, 2008 on which dates they did not appear. They further stated that as per Rule 4(7) of FEMA. Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication proceedings & Appeal) Rules, 2000, if any person fails, neglects/refuses to appear before the adjudicating authority, the adjudicating authority may proceed with the adjudication proceedings in the absence of such persons after according the reasons for doing so. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Kanwar Natwar Singh vs. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. dated 05.10.2010 Civil Appeal No. 8601 of 2010. Hence, they stated that there was no case for dispensation of the predeposit. 4. I have examined the case. The limite .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

rance on 13th & 14th December, 2007. Both Shri Kaandasamy and K.V. Dhanapalan, Advocates were also informed about the proposed dates which was attended by Mr. Dhanapalan on behalf of the appellant. The counsel for the appellant Mr. Dhanapalan started examination of the Chief Enforcement Officer and at the request of the advocate the examination was adjourned to 17th & 18th January, 2008. At para 62 of the impugned order, it states on the next date of hearing on 17.01.2008 and 18.01.2008 Shri Janakiraman I.O. (from ED) of the case was present for cross-examination. However, neither Shri K.V. Dhanapalan, Advocate of Shri V. Bhaskaran……….was present to conduct cross-examination of officer. The proceedings were ther .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

r on hardship even when specifically asked by me. With regard to the judgments quoted by the counsel for the appellant on the principles of natural justice it goes without saying that these principles are the pillars of justice and there is no denying these judgements. However, the facts of the case has to be seen to come at a conclusion whether there is a denial of these principles or not. The discussions and findings in the previous paras show that the principles have been fully followed by the adjudicating authority. 6. However considering that all the four appeals are on similar issues. I feel interests of justice would be served if the appellant is directed to deposit 50 per cent of the total penalty (covering all the four appeals as a .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

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

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||