TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ief Metropolitan Magistrate ("ACMM"), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi summoning the Petitioners in Complaint No.310/1/2002 filed under Section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ("FERA") for failure to pay the penalty amount and the order dated 17th May 2003 passed by the learned ACMM framing notice in respect of the said offence against the Petitioners. 2. The background to the present petition is that a memorandum-cum-show cause notice ("SCN") dated 25th October 1989 was issued to Continental Construction Limited ("CCL") and its Directors in respect of purported violations of Sections 9 (1) (a), 19 (1) (d) as well as 29 (1) (b) read with Section 68 FERA. 3. An adjudication order ("AO") was passed by the Special Director on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s under Section 57 FERA before the learned ACMM for non-deposit of the penalty amount as ordered by the AO. 6. On 23rd April 2002 cognizance was taken by the learned ACMM of the offence under Section 57 FERA and summons were issued to the Petitioners for 12th August 2002. It is at that stage the Appellants again went before the AT with fresh applications reiterating that even earlier they had filed stay applications and that on 26th May 1995 the Chairman, AT had granted stay but that the stay order was not communicated. The fresh stay applications were heard by the AT on 8th July 2002 in the presence of the Deputy Legal Adviser, of the ED. The following order was passed: "Application has been filed for interim stay of the recovery. Facts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Petitioners in the adjudication proceeding and set aside both the adjudication order dated 15th October 1990, as well as the subsequent order of the Appellate Tribunal. 11. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned counsel for the Petitioners relied upon the decision of this Court in Navin Kumar Kapoor v. Enforcement Directorate 2009 [2] JCC 850 and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present cases, the offence under Section 57 FERA is not attracted. On the other hand, it has been contended for the Respondents that the said decision is distinguishable on facts and would not apply to the present cases. It is submitted that inasmuch as the cognizance of a complaint is taken by the learned ACMM even prior to the formal stay order passed o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me the adjudication order has attained finality. As long as the adjudication order is subject matter of an appeal and an interlocutory order has been passed concerning the payment of penalty, it cannot be said that there was a failure to make the payment of the penalty amount. However, if the adjudication order attains finality, or there is no stay of such order by a superior tribunal and there is no payment of the penalty amount, it can possibly be said that there is a wilful failure to make the payment. However, that is not the position here." 15. The Court has found that the facts of Navin Kumar Kapoor are similar to the present cases. There it was held that the offence under Section 57 FERA would not be attracted and the present cases....