2018 (12) TMI 445 - AT - FEMA

Tribunal Upholds Adjudication Process, Appellant Must Deposit 50% Penalty

The tribunal found no violation of natural justice principles in the adjudication proceedings as the appellant had sufficient opportunities to present ... Gross violation of the principles of natural justice - Dispensation of the pre-deposit - Penalty imposed - whether principles of natural justice was followed or not? - Held that:- Innumerable opportunities have been given to the appellant for appearing/arguing his case and examining the witness but he failed to avail the same. He either did not appear or on the few occasions where he did appear before the adjudicating authority he took adjournment on some plea or the other. We agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that justice is qua both the parties and we do not find any violation by the adjudicating authority in this regard. Therefore, do not see any reason to grant them the dispensation of the pre-deposit. They have not pleaded anything either on merits of the case or on hardship even when specifically asked by me. With regard to the judgments quoted by the counsel for the appellant on the principles of natural justice it goes without saying that these principles are the pillars of justice and there is no denying these judgements. However, the facts of the case has to be seen to come at a conclusion whether there is a denial of these principles or not. The discussions and findings in the previous paras show that the principles have been fully followed by the adjudicating authority. Interests of justice would be served if the appellant is directed to deposit 50 per cent of the total penalty (covering all the four appeals as above) within a period of two months from today. Issues:- Violation of principles of natural justice in adjudication proceedings- Dispensation of pre-deposit in the caseAnalysis:1. Violation of principles of natural justice in adjudication proceedings:The appellant contended that there was a gross violation of natural justice principles as they were not given a fair chance to be heard and cross-examine witnesses. They argued that despite requesting an adjournment for a hearing, the adjudicating authority proceeded without giving them further opportunities. The appellant cited various judgments to support their claim. However, the respondent argued that multiple opportunities were provided to the appellant, including chances to cross-examine witnesses, which were not utilized. They emphasized that natural justice applies to both parties and not just one. The respondent relied on legal provisions to support their stance, stating that failure to appear before the adjudicating authority could result in proceedings continuing in the absence of the party. Ultimately, the tribunal examined the case and found that ample opportunities were given to the appellant, who either did not appear or sought adjournments, leading to no violation of natural justice principles.2. Dispensation of pre-deposit in the case:The tribunal acknowledged that all four appeals shared similar issues. While recognizing the importance of natural justice principles, the tribunal directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the total penalty within two months. This decision was made considering the interests of justice and the uniformity of issues across the appeals. The tribunal scheduled a compliance report for a future date to ensure adherence to the deposit directive.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the alleged violation of natural justice principles in the adjudication proceedings and the request for dispensation of pre-deposit. The tribunal found that the appellant had been given sufficient opportunities to present their case and cross-examine witnesses, leading to the decision not to grant dispensation of the pre-deposit. The directive to deposit 50% of the penalty within a specified timeframe aimed to balance the interests of justice across all four appeals.