9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /04 and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh each against other three appellants in appeal No. 802/04, 803/04 and 805/04 as partner of the appellant firm for contravention of Section 9(1)(e) FER Act on the reasons that appellant firm accepted fixed deposits from certain NRIs on whose credit these different amounts are shown in the firm's account books. This Tribunal while disposing of application for dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty allowed by order dated 2.4.08 to make appellant firm pre-deposit of Rs. 6 lakhs subject to which the other appellants are exempted. The appellant firm in appeal No. 204/04 has complied with pre-deposit order dated 2.4.08. Presently these appeals are taken up for final disposal on merits. 3. We have heard senior cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contentions are made that allegations in the Show Cause Notice pertains to violation of Section 9(1)(e) FER Act which is made out so the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. Per contra Shri A.C. Singh, DLA, argued that appellant firm is a non-banking finance company so can only accept deposits from NRI after obtaining registration with RBI and not otherwise. According to him, a general permission granted under Part G of Chapter 15 ECM is not applicable without registration to the appellants who are before this Tribunal. Thus Shri A.C. Singh, DLA, has supported the impugned order. 5. This is an admitted fact that different amounts totaling to Rs. 1,05,70,000/- are accepted by appellant firm as deposits from 7 NRIs whose na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quired to be returned with interest. Looking towards this situation we can accept the contention that permission or registration by RBI is granted to the appellant firm for receiving NRI deposits. Thereafter the appellants fall within the scope of general permission of RBI available in Part 'G' Chapter 15 ECM. 7. Once we reach the above conclusions than only controversy remains is whether a power attorney holder can make fixed deposits on behalf of NRIs to an Indian firm or NRI depositor himself has to make such deposit. The acts or omissions made by I. Arul and Anil Kulandai are not in question before us because SCN is not issued to them. As the Show Cause Notice is given to the appellants and not to aforesaid two persons so we res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
