9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt time was not granted to file the reply issuing the notice under section 8(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act and to defend the case, therefore, the impugned order in that appeal was not sustainable. It is not denied by the counsel for the appellants that the said order was not challenged and infact the appellants have denied the benefit of the said order. The said order was not challenged by the appellant in review petition. It is also not denied by the appellant that due process has not been followed in view of the direction issued on 11th August, 2015 and the confirmation order under appeal was passed on merits. Under these circumstances the objection of the learned counsel for the appellant on this issue is rejected and we are o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed in the presence of the counsel for the appellants whereby six months was granted to decide the matter on merits by order dated 11th August, 2015. It is argued by him that there is a statutory provisions under section (5) of PMLA, therefore, under any circumstances time period of 180 days from date of provisional attachment order could not be extended with the consent of the parties and even if order is passed by this Tribunal. 3. In support of his submission he has referred the following Judgment: "AIR 1975 Supreme Court 2065 from Gauhati in Civil Appeal Nos. 140-143, 262-275, 678 and 1761-1762 of 1973 D/-1-5-1975, Civil Appeals No. 140-143 of 1973: Supdt. Of Taxes, Dhubri and others, Appellants Vs. M/s Onkarmal Nathmal Trust, Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted fact that provisional attachment order was passed on 10th March, 2015. The case in earlier appeal no. FPA-PMLA- 984/BNG/2015 filed by the same appellants was that the sufficient time was not granted to file the reply issuing the notice under section 8(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act and to defendthe case, therefore, the impugned order in that appeal was not sustainable. The contention of the appellant in the earlier appeal no. FPA-PMLA-984/BNG/2015 was accepted and the impugned order was set aside by remanding the case after giving the reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard. The operative part of para 12 in appeal no. FPA-PMLA-984/BNG/2015 reads as under: "12. In the facts and circumstances, the appeal is allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
