9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange under section 52(4) FER Act, 1973; Legality, propriety, and correctness of adjudication order; Authorization for filing revision petition by Deputy Legal Adviser; Abuse of process by Enforcement Directorate; Service of notice on respondents; Delay in filing revision petition. Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange was tasked with examining the legality, propriety, and correctness of an adjudication order issued by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise exonerating a party from allegations of contravening the FER Act, 1973. The Enforcement Directorate filed a revision petition challenging this order, invoking the tribunal's jurisdiction under section 52(4) of the Act. The revision petition was filed after about 6 months, raising questions about the timeliness of the appeal. The revision petition was signed by the Deputy Legal Adviser, Shri T.K. Gadoo, without clear authorization from the Central Government under Article 77 of the Constitution of India. The Enforcement Directorate argued that the impugned order was perverse and warranted revision, even though the authorization for filing the petition was not established. The tribunal, however, noted that it possessed suo moto powers of revision, which could be exercised in the absence of explicit authorization. The respondent contended that the filing of the revision petition was an abuse of process and challenged the legality of the petition. The tribunal delved into the constitutional provisions governing executive actions of the Government of India, emphasizing the need for proper authorization for such actions. It was highlighted that the filing of the revision petition under the signature of the Deputy Legal Adviser lacked the necessary delegation of authority, rendering it procedurally flawed. Furthermore, issues regarding the service of notice on respondents and the delay in filing the revision petition were raised. The tribunal observed that all respondents were not effectively served, casting doubts on the maintainability of the petition. Additionally, the unexplained delay of 6 months in filing the petition was deemed unjustified, especially in the absence of complex factual considerations necessitating such a delay. Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed the revision petition on grounds of procedural irregularities, lack of proper authorization for filing, failure to serve all respondents, and unjustified delay. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and timely filing of appeals in legal proceedings.
|
