9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 10% of the amount of penalty demanded from her as pre-condition for hearing of the appeal on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide impugned order dated 20.6.2008 passed by the Special Director of Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, New Delhi, penalty of Rs. 6 crores was levied on M/s Sachdeva & Sons Industries (P) Limited, Amritsar, for violation of Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act'). In addition, penalty of Rs. 3 crores each was levied on Ashok Sachdeva and the petitioner (Mrs. Indu Sachdeva), being the Directors of the aforesaid company for violation of Section 50 of the Act. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Special Director of Enforcement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited, she had wrongly been issued notice for imposing penalty. The appeal filed by her against the order dated 20.6.2008 should have been entertained by the Tribunal without any precondition for deposit of any amount as that will be too harsh on her. She is not part of the business on account of any alleged violation for which penalty proceedings have been initiated. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that being director of M/s Sachdeva & Sons Rice Mills Limited, the petitioner was a partner in the firm M/s Sachdeva & Sons Industries. The deed of settlement was entered on 22.4.1997, to which the petitioner is a signatory. It finds mentioned in the Memorandum of Association of M/s Sachdeva & Sons Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a & Sons Industries (P) Limited, directing her to deposit part of penalty as precondition for hearing of her appeal on merits will certainly cause undue hardship to her. Hence, in our view, the condition of pre-deposit of 10% of the penalty amount imposed on her for hearing of the appeal filed by her and pending before the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. It is made clear that expression of opinion by this Court on prima facie case set up by the petitioner will not debar the Tribunal to consider the case on the merit of the controversy in case the department is able to establish that the petitioner had been the director of the company, namely, M/s Sachdeva & Sons Industries (P) Limited, hence, liable to be penalized. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
