9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment have conducted search in the house of the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on 8-10-1993 based on a statement given by one S. Hameed Rasik and there was a seizure of Rs. 3,10,000/- and thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 9(1)(b) of the erstwhile Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on the ground that the petitioner has received Rs. 98 lakhs from a person resident of outside India and for distributing an amount of Rs. 93,05,000/- to local persons or on behalf of a person residing outside India. The charges were denied by the petitioner whose case was that there was no contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and ultimatel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent, it is stated that as per the provisions of Section 52 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, for non fulfillment of the payment of pre-deposit as penalty, the Appellate Tribunal is entitled to pass orders even though the Appellate Tribunal has got jurisdiction to dispense with the payment of pre-deposit on the ground of undue hardship. It is stated that the undue hardship is a matter to be proved by the petitioner and not to be presumed by the Court by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banara Valves Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2006 (204) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.) = 2008 (12) S.T.R. 104 (S.C.). Since the amount was not deposited, the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal. It is stated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a person to give pre-deposit amount. I do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. A reference to the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the second respondent, dated 9-3-2007, directing the petitioner to deposit the amount shows that the same has been addressed not only to the petitioner but also to his counsel. Even otherwise, the petitioner having filed a statutory appeal under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act against the enforcement authority through counsel cannot be heard to say that the petitioner was not aware of the hearing by the judicial authority namely, the Appellate Tribunal. 5. In such view of the matter, there is absolutely no error on the part of the second respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days". It is totally different from Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 6. The difference between the two Acts is that under the old Act, the High Court can interfere only question of law, while under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, it can be on questions of law and on any other legal grounds also. Moreover, under the old Act, the appeal even under the questions of law can be only in respect of the order of the Appellate Tribunal passed under sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 52 of the Act which of course does not include the condition re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
