TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued by the Central Government - penalty imposed upon the appellants and the proforma respondent vide order dated 14.07.2009 (Annexure A-4), they were directed to make a pre-deposit of 10% of the amount of penalty within a period of 30 days HELD THAT:- Section 19 of FEMA deals with appeals to the Appellate Tribunal and provides that any person appealing against the order of the Adjudicating Authority levying any penalty shall, while filing the appeal, deposit the amount of such penalty with such authority as may be notified by the Central Government. The proviso lays down that where in any particular case, the Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that the deposit of such penalty would cause undue hardship, the Appellate Tribunal may disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issed the review petition by observing that repeated petitions were being filed and one such review petition had already been dismissed on 24.06.2015 - Here also, it appears that the Tribunal was not apprised that the matter had already been decided by the Apex Court. Undeterred by all proceedings which had gone against the appellants, the appellants preferred the present appeal. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present appeal is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law. The appellants have misled the Courts at every step and despite the matter having been finalized by the Apex Court, the appellants have raked up the same in subsequent petitions. The conduct of the appellants is highly deprecated. Once the matter had gone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as FERA ) (subsequently repealed and replaced by FEMA in 1999) should not be initiated against them. It was alleged that without any permission from the Reserve Bank of India, Appellant No. 1 took or refrained from taking action, which had the effect of securing the export value to the tune of $29,83,943 in respect of the goods, shipment of which had been effected, but had not so far been received in India, within the prescribed period or the time extended by the Reserve Bank of India in the prescribed manner. It was alleged that taking or refraining from taking action which had the effect of securing receipt of the full export value of the goods exported from the country of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Appellate Authority that the penalty imposed upon the appellant No. 1 was ₹12,00,00,000/- and against appellant No. 2 and proforma respondent was ₹6,00,00,000/- each. The Appellate Tribunal was directed to take a decision within a period of 60 days from the date of appearance of the parties before it and the receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court. 6. The Appellate Tribunal decided the appeal afresh and dispensed with 90% of the penalty imposed upon the appellants and the proforma respondent vide order dated 14.07.2009 (Annexure A-4), they were directed to make a pre-deposit of 10% of the amount of penalty within a period of 30 days, failing which, it was ordered, that the prospective appeal would be dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld cause undue hardship, the Appellate Tribunal may dispense with such deposits, subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the realization of penalty. Section 19 (1) is reproduced herein below:- Save as provided in sub-section (2), the Central Government or any person aggrieved by an order made by an Adjudicating Authority, other than those referred to in subsection (1) of section 17, or the Special Director (Appeals), may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal: Provided that any person appealing against the order of the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Director (Appeals) levying any penalty, shall while filing the appeal, deposit the amount of such penalty with such authority as may be notified by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to deposit the amount upon which the Hon ble Apex Court granted two weeks time to deposit the same and observed that no further time would be granted. 13. Strangely enough, after the dismissal of the SLP, instead of complying with the order and depositing the 10% amount, the appellants and the proforma respondent filed a review petition before the Appellate Tribunal. It was pleaded before the Appellate Tribunal that the appellant company was willing to tender the amount and that in case the order was not reviewed, the delay in depositing the amount be condoned. The review petition was, however, dismissed vide order dated 24.06.2015 (Annexure A-6). 14. Thereafter, the proforma respondent filed CWP-20399-2015 before this Court, which was de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
