9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l today without issuing any notice of rule to respondent No. 2. 2. These petitions are filed by two separate petitioners challenging the common order dated 3-11-2003 and the subsequent common order dated 10-3-2004 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi in Appeal Nos. 347 and 348 of 2003 by which the petitioners are required to make a pre-deposit of 40% of the amounts of penalties. 3. Varsha Polychem had effected foreign exchange remittances totalling equivalent to Indian Rs. 60,83,652/- through State Bank of Saurashtra, Mumbai. The other petitioner, i.e., the Prime Polychem had effected foreign exchange remittances totalling equivalent to Rs. 30,29,924/- through the same bank. The above remittances were made be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent No. 2 - bank and that the petitioners may be permitted to produce the certified true copies of the bills of entry which were sufficient to support the petitioners case that the goods were imported against the foreign exchange remittances under consideration. The Tribunal, however, rejected the said application by the impugned order dated 10-3-2004 (Annexure J ) only on the ground that the applications for modification of the order of pre-deposit are not maintainable in terms of the following observations :- This application for modification is filed on the reasons that certain other steps were taken by the appellants whereafter the contravention does not subsist. May it be so, the order dated 3-11-2003 cannot be re-heard. In case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is required to be granted. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that when the penalties were imposed only for non-production of the documents evidencing import of goods against foreign exchange remittances in the year- 1996-1997 after issuing show cause notice after a lapse of five years and the petitioners have moved the Tribunal for producing such evidence and the appeal being continuation of the original proceedings, the Tribunal ought to have permitted the petitioners to produce such evidence and to re-hear the stay applications. 8. In view of the above discussion, the petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 3-11-2003 (Annexure G ) and 10-3-2004 (Annexure J ) are quashed and set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
