9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 16-1-1995 under which a penalty of Rs. 90,000 has been imposed on the appellant-firm (appellant in Appeal No. 98 of 1995) for contravention of section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ( the Act ). A further penalty of Rs. 25,000 has been imposed on the appellant in Appeal No. 99 of 1995 by invoking the provisions of section 68(1) of the Act as indicated in the memorandum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the Registry. In this communication Shri Shah has stated that since he has received the copy of this Board s interim order of 12-11-1999 (under which the case was adjourned to 30-11-1999), only on 29-11-1999, it was not possible for him to appear on 30-11-1999. In the circumstances he sought adjournment and requested that the next date be fixed preferably in January, 2000 giving him an intim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed at the threshold in view of the second proviso to section 52(2) of the Act. In the circumstances the appellants were given an opportunity to make their submissions in defence, if any, as to why these appeals should not be dismissed as not maintainable on account of their failure to pre-deposit the amounts of the penalty. It is seen that this order had been received by the appellants and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n imposed both on the appellant firm as well as its partner who is the appellant in Appeal No. 99 of 1995. It is now well-settled that in the case of partnership firms, where any penalty has been imposed on the firm, an additional penalty on the partner would amount to punishing a person twice over as the firm is only a compendious expression to describe the persons constituting it and the liabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
