9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i O.P. Nahar, Chairperson: 2. This appeal is filed against adjudication order No.109/99/AD dated 13.8.1999 passed by Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 15000 against the appellant for contravention of Section 9(1)(d) FER Act 1973 on the reasons that appellant paid Rs. 1,56,000 to one Kailash Agarwal on the instructions of one Ranjan Agarwal resident of Bangladesh. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding to this application the appellant requested for instalments of Rs. 5000 each from July 2008 onwards for making pre-deposit of the penalty. From the application for it quite clear that appellant has not made pre-deposit of any amount of penalty even of the first instalment requested by him. In this situation the application for review is not made in a bonafide manner but is only an excuse to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ositing the sum imposed by way of penalty under Section 50 and within 45 days from the date on which the order is served on the person committing the contravention, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Board; Provided that the Appellate Board may entertain any appeal after expiry of said period of forty five days but not after 90 days, from the date aforesaid if it is satisfied that appellant was pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it in compliance of order dated 15.2.08 passed by this Tribunal whereby dispensation upto 90% was also granted. There is no bonafides in favour of the appellant. When compliance of judicial order is not reported the appellant has no equity in his favour. Further, the appellant was clearly told by the text of the order dated 15.2.08, the consequence of non-depositing of the penalty that appeal will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
