9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O.P. Nahar, Chairperson. These two appeals are filed against common adjudication order Nos. Adj.175 & 176/DD(AKL)/B/ 2003 dated 21-7-2003 passed by Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs against appellant M/s Relax Safety Industries, a partnership firm, in appeal No. 214/2005 and Rs. 10,10,000 against Jayant H. Maru, appellant partner in Appeal No. 215/2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion from pre-deposit where Hon'ble High Court allowed them to approach this Tribunal. Hence the application for modification of order dated 9-5-2005 is filed. It is argued that both the appellants are suffering from grave financial hardship and further the appellant partner is only earning a salary of Rs. 2,500 per month from his employment in Phoenix Abrasive Products. Hence a prayer is made to m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement that appellants do not possess wherewithal to make pre-deposit of only 30 per cent of their respective penalty when 70 per cent of their penalty is already dispensed with. The statutory scheme contained in Second Proviso to section 19(1) cannot be totally overlooked on the basis of the bald statement about financial constraints. According to Second Proviso dispensation of pre-deposit ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but the same were considered while passing the earlier order dated 9-5-2005. When asked whether any amount has been deposited showing the bona fides, the appellants he gave an answer in negative. 5. The grounds for review are well-settled which can be summarized below without elaboration. The first ground is error apparent in face of the record; and the second ground is availability of fresh evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
