9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of Section 8(1) and 8(2) FER Act on the reasons that appellant acquired and further sold at different rates US dollar 973500 and also attempted to transfer US dollar 10000 (b) Rs. 1,50,000 against allegations contained in SCN-VI for contravention of Section 8(1) and 8(2) FER Act on the reasons that appellant sold UAE Dhiram 40000 to one Vasant Sonu Kawade without any permission from RBI. 3. This appeal had been filed along with application for dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty pleading grounds of undue hardship. This application for dispensation of pre-deposit was heard and decided on 6.12.07 when appellant despite notice was neither present nor represented. After going through the records the appellant was allowed a substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommonly named as Interim Order but as per the principles in Civil Procedure Code the pre-deposit order is" not an interim order but is an order proper passed for admission of the appeal under Section 52(2) FER Act 1973 (refer USRT Corporation v. Imtiaz Hussain JT 2005(10) SC 496. 6. Per contra Shri A.C. Singh, DLA, argued for dismissal of this appeal on the reasons of not making compliance of pre-deposit in accordance with order dated 6.12.07 passed by this Tribunal. According to him, the provisions of Section 52(2) do not permit any latitude in favour of the appellant. When asked learned counsel Shri B. Sesagopalan did not opt in favour of the compliance of the pre-deposit order dated 6.12.07. Shri A.C. Singh, DLA, refer for dismissa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 SCC 577. The appellant has failed to make pre-deposit of penalty in compliance of order dated 27-3-2008 passed by this Tribunal. There is no bonafides in favour of the appellant. When compliance of judicial order is not reported the appellant has no equity in his favour. Further, the appellant was clearly told by the text of the order dated 27-3-2008 consequence of non-depositing of the penalty that "appeal will be dismissed on this ground alone". Therefore, this Tribunal agrees with the arguments by Shri A.C. Singh, DLA on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove this appeal is dismissed because the appellant has failed to make pre-deposit of penalty in compliance of the order dated 6.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
