9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant for violation of Section 8(3) and 8(4) of FERA. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company was incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act on 14-9-1988 and its registered office was at 69-A, MIDC, Andheri East, Mumbai. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant on 17-5-2002 alleging that the Reserve Bank of India has forwarded a list of importer who are acquired foreign exchange from authorized dealer for the purpose of imports or specified goods but has failed to submit the Exchange Control Copy of a Bill Entry of the relevant imports to the authorized dealers as evidence of actual import of goods which is required to be complied with by the importers as specified in para 7A.20 (Chapter 7) of the E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce then the order is nullity and without jurisdiction. The second judgment relied by the Learned Counsel for the appellant is in case of R.B. Shriram Durga Prasad v. Settlement Commissioner Income Tax - 1989 (176) ITR 169. After pursuing the aforesaid judgments, I think that these judgments will not apply in case where ex parte orders are issued after issuing notices. The question is in the present case is whether the notice is served on the appellant as per the provisions of the law. 6. Under FERA, rules are framed in exercise of powers under Section 79 of the Act namely, Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1974 and Rule 3 of the said Rules deals with the manner of service. The said rule reads as under : 3. Service of direction, orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed the impugned order on the address given by the Reserve Bank of India. This means that the appellant had not given the intimation of change of address to the authorized dealer and therefore notices were served on the old address which resulted in passing of the impugned order. 9. However, the case of the appellant is that he has changed the address much before issuing of the Show Cause Notices and therefore notices could not be served on him. In such situation, the interest of justice demands that an opportunity should be given to the appellant to meet the allegation made against him. The allegation against the appellant is that he acquired foreign exchange equivalent to Rs. 60,62,758/. As per Section 71, sub-clause (2) of FERA, the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
