2017 (8) TMI 669 - AT - Money Laundering

Prevention of Money Laundering -period of limitation - whether entire proceedings vitiated as the impugned order has not been passed within 180 days from the date of passing the provisional attachment order? - Held that - It is undisputed fact that provisional attachment order was passed on 10th March, 2015. The case in earlier appeal filed by the same appellants was that the sufficient time was not granted to file the reply issuing the notice under section 8(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act and to defend the case, therefore, the impugned order in that appeal was not sustainable. It is not denied by the counsel for the appellants that the said order was not challenged and infact the appellants have denied the benefit of the said order. The said order was not challenged by the appellant in review petition. It is also not denied by the appellant that due process has not been followed in view of the direction issued on 11th August, 2015 and the confirmation order under appeal was passed on merits. Under these circumstances the objection of the learned counsel for the appellant on this issue is rejected and we are of the considered view that the appeal is to be heard on merits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal filed against order under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for not being passed within 180 days.
2. Argument regarding extension of time period under PMLA.
3. Reference to various judgments supporting the submission.
4. Respondent's submission on the order passed on merits.
5. Dispute over application of proposition of law.
6. Previous appeal's decision and compliance with the order.
7. Failure to challenge previous order and denial of its benefit.
8. Acknowledgment of due process not being followed.
9. Rejection of appellant's objection and decision to hear the appeal on merits.

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ATPMLA was filed against an order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, alleging that the order dated 30.12.2015 by the Adjudicating Authority was passed beyond the stipulated 180 days from the provisional attachment order of 10th March, 2015. The appellant contended that the order was invalid and contrary to the Act due to the delay. The appellant's counsel argued that the time period could not be extended beyond 180 days, even with consent, citing statutory provisions under PMLA. Reference was made to several judgments to support this argument.

On the other hand, the respondent argued that the order passed on 11th August, 2015, granting six months for deciding the matter on merits, was not challenged by the appellant in the High Court. It was emphasized that the impugned order was passed after complying with the order of 11th August, 2015. While acknowledging the strict application of legal propositions, it was asserted that the facts and circumstances of the present case were different.

The Tribunal noted that in a previous appeal by the same appellants, the contention regarding insufficient time to file a reply and defend the case was accepted, leading to the impugned order being set aside for fresh adjudication within six months. The appellants did not challenge this decision, and it was highlighted that due process had not been followed as per the direction issued on 11th August, 2015. Consequently, the objection raised by the appellant was rejected, and the Tribunal decided to hear the appeal on its merits.

In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal scheduled the next hearing for 7th July, 2017, to proceed with the appeal based on its merits.