TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals dismissed for failing to comply with second proviso to s.19(1) of FEMA, 1999; no pre-deposit or stay</h1> <h3>M/s. Lords Polymer (I) Pvt. Ltd. And Shri Amit Shah Versus The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai</h3> AT dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with the second proviso to s.19(1) of FEMA, 1999. The appellants failed to make the required pre-deposit of ... Non-compliance with pre-deposit directions - failure to compliance with the second proviso to Section 19(1) of FEMA, 1999 - HELD THAT:- The Appellants have failed to make the pre-deposit of penalty amounts and have not sought any extension of time to make the pre-deposit of penalty amounts. The Appellants have also failed to produce any Order of stay or otherwise of higher judicial forum. Moreover, the Appellants are no longer in communication with their Advocate. Thus, the Appellants have failed to comply with the provisions of the second proviso to Section 19(1) of FEMA, 1999. Therefore, the two Appeals are dismissed. Appeals challenging the Order-in-Original dated 15.09.2020 (penalties totalling Rs. 22,00,00,000/- on M/s. Lords Polymer (I) Pvt. Ltd. - Rs. 21,70,53,240/- for contraventions of Sections 7 and 8 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 read with Regulations 8, 9 & 13 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000; and Rs. 2,20,00,000/- on Shri Amit Shah under Section 42(1) of FEMA) were disposed for non-compliance with pre-deposit directions. The Tribunal noted Section 19(1) of FEMA and reproduced the provisos, including: 'where in any particular case, the Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that the deposit of such penalty would cause undue hardship to such person, the Appellate Tribunal may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions...' The Tribunal had earlier, after taking note of undue hardship, directed a pre-deposit of 10% of the penalty within six weeks. The appellants failed to make the pre-deposit, sought no extension, produced no stay order from a higher forum, and ceased communication with their counsel. For failure to comply with the second proviso to Section 19(1), both appeals are dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
