2008 (7) TMI 1122

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ibunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by Km. Vijay Laxmi, Member. 2. These appeals are filed against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/71 to 75/ B/ SDE/ PKA/ 2001 dated 29.03.2001 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai imposing a penalty of Rs. 8,00,000 (Rupees eight lakhs only) against the appellant, Smt. Meera Sitaraman for contravention of provisions of Section 8(1) of the Fore .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have been served on the appellant by affixation under Rule 14(c) adjudication proceedings and Appeal Rules, 2000. The two dates have already been fixed in this matter thereafter i.e. 19.02.2008 and 07.05.2002 where today also none has appeared on behalf of the appellant which shows lack of bonafide on the part of the appellant. 3. It will be appropriate here to produce the provisions of Section 5 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Provided further that where the Appellate Board is of opinion that the deposit to be made will cause undue hardship to the appellant, it may, in its own discretion, dispense with such a deposit either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it may deem fit. 4. Thus under the statutory scheme the appellants are under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X