1990 (12) TMI 248

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... materials were collected and seized, culminating in the initiation of adjudicatory proceedings by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Southern Zone, Madras-6 who in his order No. DD/MAS/182/86 dated 12-6-1986, holding the petitioner guilty of contravening the provisions of Section 9(l)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short 'FERA'), levied a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on her besides confiscating the sum of Rs. 15,000/- seized from her premises on the date of search with a direction for payment of penalty within forty five days from the date of receipt of the same. 3. The order in fact had been communicated to and received by the petitioner on 27-9-1986. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner exercised her option ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o condition precedents to be fulfilled, once an option for preferring the appeal is exercised. The two conditions are :- (1) Penalty should have to be deposited; and (2) the appeal had to be filed within forty five days from the date of receipt of the order. 9. There is no manner of doubt whatever that the appeal had been preferred on 10-11-1986, as referred to earlier, which is very well within the period of forty five days, as the order relating to the adjudicatory proceedings had been communicated on 27-9-1986. 10. No doubt true it is that the penalty amount had not been deposited. It is not as if, learned Counsel would contend, that in all eventualities and situations, penalty amount should have to be deposited for the entertainment....