9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttal in the criminal case, no penalty is imposable on him, does not merit consideration, since the Supreme Court has categorically held that adjudication and prosecution are two independent proceedings and the finding in one is not conclusive in the other. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. - Decided against appellant. - C.M.A. No. 2020 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 23-1-2015 - R. Sudhakar And R. Karuppiah,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. J. Ferozkhan For the Respondents : Mr. M. Dhandapani JUDGMENT (Delivered By R. Sudhakar, J.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi, in allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted Haza Mohideen and handed over the amount of ₹ 4 Lakhs as agreed. 3. On this premise, a show cause notice was issued and the same was adjudicated and in the said adjudication order, the appellate authority held that there was contravention of Section 9 (1) (b) and (d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short 'FERA Act') and a penalty of ₹ 1 Lakh was imposed on Haza Mohideen and a penalty of ₹ 75,000/= was imposed on the appellant under Section 50 of the FERA Act. A sum of ₹ 9 Lakhs was also ordered to be confiscated. 4. It is the grievance of the appellant that proper opportunity was not given to him to represent his side of the matter at the time of adjudication. 5. In the meanwhil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether the finding of the criminal court is binding on the appellate authority in the facts of the instant case? 8. Heard Mr.Ferozkhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Dhandapani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the criminal court in acquitting the appellant and pleaded that in view of the acquittal of the appellant, no penalty should have been imposed on the appellant. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank Ors. - Vs Directorate of Enforcement Ors. (AIR 2006 SC 1301 :: 2006 (4) SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of income and the imposition of penalty. When the Tribunal held that there was no concealment, and the order levying penalty was cancelled, according to this Court, the very foundation for the prosecution itself disappeared. This Court held that it was settled law that levy of penalties and prosecution under Section 276-C of the Income Tax Act are simultaneous and hence, once the penalties are cancelled on the ground that there was concealment, the quashing of the prosecution under Section 276-C of the Income Tax Act was automatic. We have held already that on the scheme of FERA, the adjudication and the prosecution are distinct and separate. Hence, the ratio of the above decision is not applicable. That apart, there is merit in the submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
