Belated revisional challenge on non-impleadment failed where no basis existed to reopen adjudication against the company.

A belated revisional challenge seeking remand and fresh adjudication was rejected where the company had not been issued a show cause notice or impleaded, and the alleged contraventions were treated as having been committed by the noticees in their individual capacity. The tribunal found no basis to reopen the matter against the company, especially since the seized currency had already been confiscated and the revision was brought long after the adjudication order. The request for interference was therefore procedurally unsustainable and meritless, and the impugned adjudication was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisions calling for remand and fresh adjudication against the company and its directors were maintainable, and whether interference with the impugned adjudication order was warranted.

Analysis: The challenge was founded on the contention that the company through which the transactions were carried out had not been issued a show cause notice or impleaded in the adjudication proceedings, and that the directors could not be proceeded against in isolation. The record also showed that the company was stated to be incorporated at Dubai, the alleged contraventions were treated as having been committed in the individual capacity of the noticees, and the revision was brought long after the adjudication order. In addition, the seized currency had already been confiscated, and no basis was shown for reopening the matter to initiate a fresh round of proceedings against the company. The objection was therefore considered both procedurally unsustainable and meritless at the revisional stage.

Conclusion: The request for remand and fresh proceedings was rejected, and the revisions were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication was left undisturbed, with no further relief granted in revisional proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated revisional challenge seeking to cure non-impleadment of a company cannot succeed where no show cause notice or complaint was issued against that company and the proceedings otherwise do not justify reopening the adjudication.

---