9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted against the adjudication order No. 24/ADJ/95-DD (KKK) dated 31-3-1995 under which a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 has been imposed on the appellant for non-realisation of export proceeds amounting to Rs. 3,26,249 and thereby-contravening the provisions of section 18(2), read with sections 18(3) and 68(1), of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. A further penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 has been impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudication order has been passed on 31-3-1995 itself. Shri Gulati, therefore, submitted that the order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 4. Shri Gulati further submitted that the appellant had produced the evidence of realisation of export proceeds in respect of all the GRIs, except one, the amount of which was realised in 1994, but the learned Adjudicating Officer has not made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 31-3-1995, a photocopy of which together with the receipt of the post office, is at Annexure 1 of the Memorandum of Appeal. However, this letter is not available on the department's file, nor is there any notings to indicate the receipt of this letter. It appears from the notings of the file that after satisfying himself about the service of the call notice the learned Deputy Director made h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;. The reference number is T-4/203/DZ/94-DD/Call/MRC/2387 to 2388. 6. It is clear from the position as revealed from the file that a call notice was issued on 4-4-1995 fixing the case for hearing on 24-4-1995 whereas the impugned order, which is an ex parte order, was issued on 10-4-1995. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order had been passed even before the date fixed for hearing of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w. The appellant shall appear before the Adjudicating Officer at the time and date indicated by him under a proper notice, giving the appellant adequate opportunity to present himself in person or through his counsel or any other representative. Before parting with this case, it is necessary to observe that, in law, a proprietary concern is not a legal entity independent of its proprietor and, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
