TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aggrieved from the Adjudication Order dated 8-9-2004 whereby the appellant-company which was earlier functioning in the name and style of M/s. Advanced Radio Masts Ltd. was held guilty for contravention of Sections 8(3) and 8(4) of FERA, 1973, r/w Para 7A.20(i) of Exchange Control Manual while the Managing Director Mr. Warlu was held guilty for contravention of Section 68(1) r/w Section 68(2) of FERA, 1973. A consolidated penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs was imposed. An application for stay and waiver from pre-deposit of penalty was moved which was disposed of by this Bench vide order dated 25-11-2014 with the direction that the recovery of the amount of penalty imposed against the appellant shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant from various banks stating their inability to provide bank guarantee without the deposit of the amount for which bank guarantee was being sought. The Tribunal vide its order dated 12-1-2015 allowed the modification application with the direction to the appellant to instead furnish corporate guarantee of the balance 85% of the penalty imposed through impugned order within a period of 30 days. The order dated 25-11-2014 was modified to this limited extent. 5. The instant review petition has been filed by the Enforcement Directorate for review of the modified order dated 12-1-2015. Ms. Pavitra Warriar, ld. legal consultant has contended that Section 19(1) proviso clearly stipulates that the Tribunal while granting relief, if any, to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereby the application for stay and waiver was disposed of. Submission is that an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- as directed by the Tribunal has been deposited and the respondent has approached the Tribunal to allow it to furnish corporate guarantee in place of bank guarantee on the ground that several banks whom the respondent-company approached insisted pre-deposit of 100% of the bank guarantee amount for issuing bank guarantee. The respondent-company has filed copies of the letters issued by the banks in support of its contention. Further submission is that after considering the factual matrix placed before the Tribunal, order under review dated 12-1-2015 directing the respondent to furnish corporate guarantee for the balance 85% of penalty ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 1384/2005, dated 21-7-2005 has modified the order passed by the single judge wherein entire tax demand was directed to be paid in cash and instead directed that the petitioner should furnish personal bond for the amount of tax. On the basis of the above it has been prayed that the review petition may be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submission of ld. legal consultant as well as ld. counsel for the respondent/appellant and have also perused the record. It is a settled legal position as has been filed in the case of Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon v. UOI [AIR 1980 SC 2041] that a review is not a routine procedure and review is not permissible of the earlier order unless the Court is satisfied wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed through the adjudication order. The case laws relied upon by the ld. counsel for the respondent justifying the order of modification of furnishing of corporate guarantee in place of bank guarantee. It may be pertinent to mention here that the corporate guarantee has been filed in compliance and must have been accepted, therefore, also the application is misconceived. 9. It may be observed that moving such applications and contending that the Tribunal has deviated from the routine procedure without any ground amounts to scandalizing the Tribunal & attempt to lower its image in the estimation of public and is an aspersion upon the functioning of the Tribunal. The Enforcement Directorate is warned for future to desist from making su....