9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rits - Held that:- In the facts of this case after having come to conclusion that the Appellants have an arguable case, the deposit of 10% of the penalty amount in each of the Appeals would meet the ends of justice. This further requirement of furnishing reliable guarantee for balance 90% is not called for in the facts of the present case. This is particularly so as the impugned order finds that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Associates, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Avinash Rana, Senior Counsel with Mr. D.P. Singh, Advocates for Respondent. COMMON ORDER: All these appeals under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ('Act') challenge the common order dated 29.6.2015 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange. The impugned order dated 29.6.2015 was passed in exercise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellants had filed appeals from the order of the Special Director imposing penalties upon them in their capacity as a Director of Companies which have exported goods without taking steps to realize the export proceeds. This in breach of Section 8 of the Act. 5. The Appellant had also filed application for dispensing with pre-deposit of penalty for the purposes of hearing of its appeals on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice. This further requirement of furnishing reliable guarantee for balance 90% is not called for in the facts of the present case. This is particularly so as the impugned order finds that the affidavit filed pleading financial hardship was uncontroverted. 6. In the above view, we vary the impugned order dated 25.6.2015 and direct the Appellants to deposit 10% of the penalty amount as directed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
