9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant, M/s. National Film Development Corporation for contravention of the provisions of Section 18(2) (3) of FERA, 1973 read with Section 49(3) and (4) of the FEMA for not making reasonable efforts to realize the outstanding export proceeds to the tune of Rs. 44,41,098. The appellant company has made payment of the whole amount of penalty where presently this appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. 3. A Show Cause Notice no. T-4/23-B/DD/2001 dt 29.06.01 was issued against the appellant company and its Managing Director, D. Mukhopadhyay and Deputy General Manager, V.P.S. Menon for contravention of Section 18(2) 18(3) of the FERA for not making reasonable efforts to realize the export proceeds to the tune of Rs. 44,41,098 where export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Adjudicating Officer to discuss the filmwise explanation given by the appellant about reasonable efforts made to realize the dues which were not considered under impugned order. 5. It is argued that the reply to Show Cause Notice given by the appellant was not considered by the Adjudicating Officer while deciding this matter and the delay has totally invalidated the order. The Adjudicating Officer had acted in conscious disregard of the rule of law. The appellant was wrongly held guilty for no fault on his part where the penalty has wrongly been imposed and the impugned order was liable to be set aside. As against it, it is argued by Shri. A.C. Singh, DLA, that as per reply filed by the appellant Annexure 'B' explaining the effor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 24.09.01 and the matter was heard on 25.09.01 and it was not correctly noted in the notice dt.09.11.01 that the reply was not submitted by the appellant. Thereafter, there is no mention in the Adjudication Order that notice of hearing was issued and served on the appellant by dak or by affixation as required under Adjudication Proceedings Appeal Rules, 2000 where Adjudication Order was passed by the Adjudicating Officer on dt.24.03.04 after a long gap of 2 years. The Adjudicating Officer, Shri. A.K. Lawande, DD, fixed three dates 12.01.04, 14.01.04 and 21.01.04 within a span of about one week in this matter where it is not noted in the Adjudication Order whether notices of hearing were issued and served on the appellants and the order wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is well settled law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that such an inordinate delay in passing orders after the conclusion of hearing will vitiate the judgement as it has been observed by the Supreme Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, JT 2001(6) SC 515. The observations of the Court are produced below : The inordinate unexplained and negligent delay in pronouncing the judgment is alleged to have actually negatived the right of appeal conferred upon the convicts. Any procedure or course of action which does not ensure a reasonable quick adjudication has been termed to be unjust. Such a course is stated to be contrary to the maxim Actus Cariae neminem Gadavi that an act of the court shall prejudice none. Justice should not on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
