9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (7) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1966, the firm known as Eastern Machinery and Trading Co. of which firm the petitioner is today the sole proprietor was issued a show cause notice in respect of alleged violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. It is the agreed position that in respect of the said show cause notice, cause was shown by the firm by its reply dated 9th August, 1966. 2. The show cause notice has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion proceedings, the petitioner sent his reply on 6th January, 1977 setting out, in addition to facts in the earlier notice - the very pertinent fact that the Enforcement Directorate had earlier given certain directions to the Reserve Bank of India at Bombay, which were lifted after the earlier personal hearing given by the Director at New Delhi. 4. A very curious letter of 7th January, 1977 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecords of its adjudication proceedings. No explanation is forthcoming from the department as to why adjudication proceedings were not held for 11 years since that is the department s case. 6. It is true that no period of limitation has been prescribed for such adjudication. It follows also that the adjudication proceedings cannot be held twice over. The petitioner has averred that the adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this is otherwise also a stale matter which cannot be allowed to be reopened, since to allow it to be reopened, would cause serious detriment and prejudice to the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner is not able to produce the formal order is immaterial; that there were earlier adjudication proceedings may be reasonably borne out by the fact that the department did nothing for l l years. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
