9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against Adjudication Order imposing penalty for contravention of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. - Non-compliance with pre-deposit of penalty amount. - Legal provisions under FERA, 1973 regarding pre-deposit of penalty amount. - Applicability of Supreme Court judgment in cases of non-compliance with statutory provisions. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty for contravening the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant, Javer Chand T. Nahar, received an amount in Indian currency from a local person under instructions from a person resident outside India without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India, leading to the penalty of Rs. 6,000. The appellant sought dispensation from pre-deposit of the penalty amount, which was rejected by the tribunal due to lack of undue hardship. Despite multiple opportunities and notices, the appellant failed to comply with the tribunal's orders, indicating a lack of bonafide. The advocate representing the respondent argued for the dismissal of the appeal based on non-compliance with judicial orders as per Section 52(2) of the FER Act. The judgment delves into the legal provisions of FERA, 1973, specifically Section 52, which mandates the deposit of the penalty amount for filing an appeal unless dispensation is granted. The tribunal highlighted the necessity of complying with the statutory scheme and cited a Supreme Court judgment (Navin Chandra Chhotelal v. Central Board of Excise & Customs) to emphasize that failure to make the pre-deposit can lead to the rejection of the appeal. The tribunal reiterated that the Appellate Authority is empowered to dismiss appeals for non-compliance with the statutory provisions, preventing the hearing of the appeal on its merits. In conclusion, the tribunal found that the appellant had not adhered to the tribunal's orders despite ample opportunities, leading to a lack of equity in the appellant's favor. Citing the statutory scheme under FERA, the tribunal agreed with the respondent's advocate that the appeal should be dismissed due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the record was directed to be consigned to the Record Room, closing the legal proceedings in this matter.
|
