1995 (7) TMI 69 - HC - Central Excise

Court Grants Relief, Directs Timely Appeal Decision

The court granted relief to the petitioner by directing the first respondent to decide on the appeal within three months. Pending the decision, the third ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - FERA Issues:1. Challenge to the proceedings of the third respondent dated 27-1-1995.2. Failure of the first respondent to pass orders on the application to dispense with the penalty amount.3. Legality of the direction issued by the third respondent to deposit the penalty amount.4. Relief sought by the petitioner due to the pending appeal and inaction of the first respondent.Detailed Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the proceedings of the third respondent dated 27-1-1995, which was a consequential order of the second respondent's proceedings dated 25-10-1994. The petitioner sought relief to quash these proceedings and prevent interference with their possession of properties. The court noted the petitioner's appeal to the first respondent against the penalty imposed by the second respondent under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The petitioner also applied to dispense with the penalty deposit, but the first respondent had not yet decided on this application, leading to the challenge of the third respondent's actions for recovery of the penalty amount.2. The court observed that the first respondent's failure to pass orders on the petitioner's application to dispense with the penalty amount was a crucial issue. The petitioner argued that without a decision from the first respondent on the deposit of the penalty, they had no choice but to seek relief from the court. The court highlighted the provisions of Section 52(2) of the Act, which empower the Appellate Authority to dispense with the penalty deposit. The court emphasized the importance of the first respondent's role in either rejecting or allowing such applications, which had a direct impact on the petitioner's liabilities.3. Regarding the legality of the direction issued by the third respondent to deposit the penalty amount, the court acknowledged that without an order of stay from the Appellate Authority, the third respondent was within their jurisdiction to issue such a direction. The court found no illegality in the third respondent's actions. However, considering the pending appeal and the first respondent's inaction, the court deemed it necessary to grant relief to the petitioner in the interest of justice.4. In providing relief, the court directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal within three months from the date of the court's order. Until then, the third respondent was instructed not to initiate any recovery proceedings against the petitioner for the penalty imposed by the second respondent. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring justice and protecting the petitioner's rights during the appeal process, highlighting the need for timely decisions by the relevant authorities.