9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000. (4) Appeal No. 43/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/7/AD/AKL/B/97, dated 9-1-1997, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000. (5) Appeal No. 44/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/1/AD/AKL/B/97, dated 6-1-1997, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000. (6) Appeal No. 45/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/127/B/DD/RAJ/96, dated 22-7-1996, passed by Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 65,000. (7) Appeal No. 50/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/12/AD/AKL/B/97, dated 7-1-1997, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 15,000. (8) Appeal No. 51/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/141/AD/AKL/B/96, dated 10-9-1996, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000. (9) Appeal No. 52/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/142/AD/AKL/B/96, dated 10-9-1996, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 6,000. (10) Appeal No. 53/1997 against Adjudication Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 4-11-1996, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 8,000. (24) Appeal No. 68/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/177/AD/AKL/B/96, dated 4-11-1996, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000. (25) Appeal No. 69/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/178/AD/AKL/B/96, dated 5-11-1996, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000. (26) Appeal No. 70/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/179/AD/AKL/B/96, dated 5-11-1996, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 20,000. (27) Appeal No. 71/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/180/AD/AKL/B/96, dated 6-11-1996, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000. (28) Appeal No. 73/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/183/AD/AKL/B/96, dated 6-11-1996, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000. (29) Appeal No. 74/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/184/AD/AKL/B/96, dated 7-11-1996, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000. (30) A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der No. ADJ/201/AD/AKL/B/96, dated 11-12-1996, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000. (44) Appeal No. 89/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/202/AD/AKL/B/96, dated 11-12-1996, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 12,000. (45) Appeal No. 90/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/203/AD/AKL/B/96, dated 13-12-1996, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000. (46) Appeal No. 91/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/204/AD/AKL/B/96, dated 13-12-1996, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 12,000. (47) Appeal No. 92/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/205/AD/AKL/B/96, dated 16-12-1996, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000. (48) Appeal No. 93/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/206/AD/AKL/B/96, dated 16-12-1996, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000. (49) Appeal No. 94/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/207/AD/AKL/B/96, dated 17-12-1996, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (63) Appeal No. 172/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/84/AD/AKL/B/97, dated 12-3-1997, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 12,000. (64) Appeal No. 173/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/85/AD/AKL/B/97, dated 13-3-1997, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 15,000. (65) Appeal No. 174/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/86/AD/AKL/B/97, dated 13-3-1997, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 15,000. (66) Appeal No. 175/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/74/AD/AKL/B/97, dated 14-3-1997, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 15,000. (67) Appeal No. 176/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/87/AD/AKL/B/97, dated 14-3-1997, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 15,000. (68) Appeal No. 177/1997 against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/88/AD/AKL/B/97, dated 14-3-1997, passed by Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 18,000. 2. Despite notice, the appellant is neither present nor represented. Earlier also, the appellant was not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t may deem fit. 5. As the language of Second Proviso to section 52(2) is plain and unambiguous, this Tribunal has no authority to interpret it in a different manner only because of harsh consequences arises therefrom. The statute cannot be recasted or rewritten by Tribunal on the face of the clear texture of Second Proviso. In this regard, reference can be again made to the Apex Court judgment in Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal [2003] 2 SCC 577. Also, statutory law cannot be given different meaning only because of harsh consequences as said by a Latin saying that law is binding and harsh because it is law. While applying law prescribed by Legislature no sympathy can come into play. 6. It can be looked from above discussion that a clear picture is drawn of failure to make pre-deposit of penalty in compliance of judicial order dated 5-8-2005. The Tribunal has shown enough latitude by allowing 90 per cent dispensation of penalty but the appellant has failed to make pre-deposit of even 10 per cent penalty within the period allowed in compliance of this Tribunal's order dated 5-8-2005. Thus, the appellant has not shown bona fides. Therefore, no equity lies in his favour. 7. For the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
