9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to Adjudication Order imposing penalties under FER Act, 1973, non-appearance of appellants, application for modification of pre-deposit order, power of review under FER Act, 1973, grounds for review, dispensation of pre-deposit, statutory right to appeal, distinction between review and appeal, power to correct clerical errors, error apparent on face of record, jurisdiction for rectification, interpretation of statutory provisions, consequences of non-deposit of penalty. Detailed Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange involved challenges to an Adjudication Order imposing penalties under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellants failed to appear or be represented, leading to the ex parte consideration of their appeals. The appellants had previously applied for modification of a pre-deposit order, which was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized that once a pre-deposit order is passed, it cannot be revisited merely upon request, as there is no power of review granted under the FER Act, 1973. The grounds for review are well-settled, and the appellant did not present sufficient grounds for relief (paragraphs 3-6). The Tribunal clarified that the right to appeal is a statutory provision under the FER Act, 1973, with a pre-condition of making a pre-deposit of penalty. However, the Tribunal can dispense with pre-deposit based on undue hardship. The judgment referenced a Supreme Court case stating that a mere assertion of undue hardship is not enough; the factual scenario must be considered. The distinction between review, appeal, and revision was highlighted, emphasizing that the right to review is not a procedural right but a substantive one under the FER Act, 1973 (paragraphs 7-8). Regarding the power to correct clerical errors, the Tribunal explained that modification of an order is not permissible unless there is an apparent error on the face of the order. The judgment emphasized that the absence of reasons in an order does not make it erroneous, and such errors cannot be corrected by the same Tribunal. The appellants' application for review or modification was rejected based on these principles (paragraphs 9-10). The judgment cited Supreme Court cases to illustrate the distinction between a mere erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. An error for rectification must strike one immediately upon looking at the record without requiring lengthy reasoning. The statutory scheme under section 52(2) of the FER Act, 1973, mandates pre-deposit of penalty unless dispensed with due to undue hardship. The Tribunal has no authority to interpret the provisions differently, and the consequences of non-deposit were clearly communicated to the appellants (paragraphs 11-17). Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed as the appellants failed to comply with the pre-deposit order, as directed by the Tribunal in its previous order. The judgment reiterated the importance of statutory provisions and the consequences of non-compliance (paragraph 18).
|
