9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, otherwise, modified by High Court of Madras by Order dated 7.8.2007. These six appeals have been filed against following two different Adjudication Order Nos. as detailed below :- (i) Appeal No. 604/2005 is filed against Adjudication Order No. SDE/PKD/IV/5/2005 dated 31st January, 2005, passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/- against the appellant. (ii) Appeal No. 605/2005 is filed against Adjudication Order No. SDE/PKD/IV/5/2005 dated 31st January, 2005, passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,27,000/- against the appellant. (iii) Appeal No. 606/2005 is filed against Adjudication Order No. SDE/PKD/IV/5/2005 dated 31st January, 2005, passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Actually, these appeals are filed under Section 19 FEM Act, 1999, so provisions of Section 19(1) FEM Act, 1999, should have been quoted instead of Section 52(2) FER Act, 1973. Despite this typographical error, fin reality, the scheme of making pre-deposit either under Section 52(2) FER Act, 1973, or Section 19(1) FEM Act, 1999, is somewhat similar. Rather, Second Proviso of Section 19(1) FEM Act, 1999, has made the pre-deposit scheme more stringent by adding that this Tribunal while granting dispensation will ensure safeguarding of realization of penalty. (Ref. Monotosh Saha v. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate; 2008 (11) Scale 603). 4. According to Section 19(1) FEM Act, 1999, every appellant, at the time of preferring an appeal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such fee as may be prescribed. Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty five days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period." 5. From the above provision, it is clear that every appellant at the time of filing of appeal is obliged under statutory scheme contained in Section 19(1) to make pre-deposit of penalty. However, the Legislature has entrusted this Tribunal with powers of granting dispensation with or without condition under Second Proviso of Section 19(1) wherever undue hardship can be caused by pre-deposit of penalty to the appellant. It is also well settled by the judgment of Apex Court in (1) Benara Valves Ltd. v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SLPs are dismissed by order dated 8.7.2008. However, the appellants did not comply pre-deposit order dated 14.3.2007 of this Tribunal on modified by High Court of Madras by order dated 7.8.2009. It is also required to be stated that till today, the appellants have not made any compliance and no amount is made as pre-deposit by them. Thus, the appellants have failed to prove their bench. 7. The appellants have not made out any ground of review which are well settled as (1) error apparent on face of record, (2) availability of fresh evidence having substantial bearing on the decision which was not available earlier despite due diligence; and (3) similar grounds. Therefore, the dismissal of these appeals cannot be faulted even when typographi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
