9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellants in FPA-FE-266/JL/2008 & FPA-FE-267/JL/2008 for reviewing the order of Appellate Tribunal dated 14.07.2009. However, they subsequently filed an amended review petition MP-FE-403/JL/2019 (Review) & MP-FE 404/JL/2019 (Review) on 01.02.2019 against the review order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 24.06.2015. They also filed COD applications on 26.04.2019 for the delay in filing the review petitions. The main plea in the review petition is that the review order passed by the Tribunal dated 24.06.2015 was null and void in as much as the Appellate Tribunal in the said order dated 24.06.2015 had accepted that they had extension for realization of the export proceeds till 30.06.2002 but still they ignored the same and that it is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Hon'ble High Court. Thus, the petitioner has not come with clean hands and consequently is not entitled to any relief on this count also." If they were aggrieved by this order dated 24.06.2015, they had the option to approach the Hon'ble High Court. But they did not do so. However, they again filed another review petition on 30.10.2018 which was subsequently amended by another review petition as stated supra filed on 01.02.2019 to review the earlier review order of 24.06.2015, and that too after a gap of more than three years. 3. During the personal hearing before me, the learned counsel for the appellant tried to argue the entire case again on merits although we were just dealing with the review petitions of the review order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 24.06.2015 is a speaking order which also has reflected as to how the appellants have tried to mislead the Bench. As discussed in the brief facts, the sequence of this case only points towards the appellants trying to take the Bench for granted and make a mockery of the entire system. I cannot allow such travesty of justice. 6. The review application alongwith the condonation of delay for which no cogent reason has been given, is therefore dismissed as rejected. Since they have failed to pre-deposit as per the order of the Tribunal dated 14.07.2009 which is mandatory under Section 19 of FEMA, 1999, and it is now ten years since then the appeal Nos. FPA-FE-266/JL/2008 & FPA-FE- 267/JL/2008 is also dismissed. FPA-FE-268/JL/2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
