9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;). It is seen from the record that the dispensation application made by the appellant was disposed of under this Board's order of 31-7-1992 but there is nothing on the record to show that the copy of the said order was despatched to the appellant. Shri Madhu Patel, the learned counsel for the appellant, stated that neither he nor the appellant received the said order. He requested that a copy of the said order be given to him dasti and he undertook to ensure the compliance of the said order before 31-10-1995 by depositing the amount of penalty by way of pre-deposit. He submitted that since he had come from Bombay, the appeal may be heard on merits on his undertaking to deposit the amount of penalty and the order may be pronounced after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make the payment and had been keeping the RBI informed by first seeking extension of time and on 26-9-1984 by seeking permission to write off. He submitted that the entire position was explained to the learned Adjudicating Officer in the appellant's letter dated 12-8-1988. Shri Patel contended that in the circumstances the appellant cannot be said to have acted in a manner which has caused non-realisation of the outstanding export proceeds; on the other hand, the non-realisation was in spite of the sustained efforts made by the appellant. 3. Shri Gadoo appearing for the respondents submitted that the RBI was not satisfied with the appellant's application for extension of time and refused permission to write off the outstanding amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s fifty thousand is totally disproportionate to the outstanding amount of Rs. 3,96,884.44. He submitted that even if the efforts made by the appellant are not considered to be effective steps, it would be a matter of bad judgment on the part of the appellant and the facts and circumstances clearly show that non-realisation of the export proceeds has not been due to any deliberate act or omission on its part. On the other hand, he pleaded that the appellant had been acting in a bona fide manner and when it was found that the realisation of the export proceeds could not be secured, it refunded the cash incentive and applied to the RBI for permission to write off. He further submitted that the appellant has already suffered a loss of about fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
