TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 396
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort "FERA"). The second respondent was charged under Sub-Section (2) of Section 64 of FERA for aiding and abetting in the said transaction. 2. On the basis of a show-cause-notice, an adjudication was made by the Special Director of Enforcement. By an order dated 17th June 2010, the Special Director of Enforcement dropped all the charges against the respondents. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the appellant purported to file a revision application before the Appellate Tribunal established under section 18 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short "FEMA"). We may note that FEMA came into force from 1st June 2000. By virtue of Sub-Section (1) of Section 49 of FEMA, FERA was repealed. Sub-Section (1) further provides that the Appellate Board constituted under FERA shall stand dissolved. 3. By the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal, after considering the provisions of FERA and FEMA came to the conclusion that after the repeal of FERA, the revision application filed by the appellant was not maintainable in law. In the impugned order subject matter of Appeal No. 5 of 2016, a similar view has been taken by the Appellate Tribunal. 4. The learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of Customs, Mumbai 2006 (202) ELT (SC). Without prejudice to his earlier contentions, he submitted that Mimansa principle of interpretation will have to be applied in the present case. He submitted that applicability of Mimansa principles is approved by the Apex Court in the case of Ispat Industries (supra). He submitted that applying Mimansa principle, the revision application preferred by the appellant ought to have been entertained by the Appellate Tribunal constituted under FEMA as the appellant cannot be rendered without a remedy. He also relied upon an extract of a commentary on Rule of interpretation dealing with the Mimansa principles. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also relied upon another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Craft Interiors Pvt.Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore 2006 (203) ELT 529 (SC). 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and order. He submitted that the remedy of revision is by way of procedure and it is never as a matter of right. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers (2003) 6 SCC 659. 7. We ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal preferred to the Appellate Board under Sub-Section (2) of section 52 of the repealed Act but not disposed of before the commencement of this Act shall stand transferred to and shall be disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal constituted under this Act; (c) every appeal from any decision or order of the Appellate Board under Sub-Section (3) or Sub-Section (4) of section 52 of the repealed Act shall, if not filed before the commencement of this Act, be filed before the High Court within a period of sixty days of such commencement: Provided that the High Court may entertain such appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period. (6) Save as otherwise provided in Sub-Section (3), the mention of particular matters in Sub-Sections (2), (4) and (5) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), with regard to the effect of repeal." Sub-Section (6) of Section 19 of FEMA confers powers on the Appellate Tribunal to call for the records of a proceeding for e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Bench has made a distinction between appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction. It is held that provisions conferring appellate jurisdiction on a Superior Court are treated as conferring a right of appeal on an aggrieved litigant as distinct from the provisions conferring revisional jurisdiction on a superior Court. The provisions conferring revisional jurisdiction are not treated as conferring a right of revision on the litigant. Revisional jurisdiction is some sort of a supervisory jurisdiction. It is to be exercised at the discretion of the Superior Court. This discussion is in the context of the fact that there are catena of decisions which hold that a right of appeal is vested in a litigant on the day on which a lis is filed. A remedy of revision is thus never as a matter of right. 11. Now coming back to the repealing Section which is Section 49 of FEMA, emphasis is laid by the learned Counsel for the appellant on Sub-Section (3). There may be cases where there is a violation of FERA a day or few days prior to its repeal. Sub-Section( 3) of Section 49 is an enabling provision which says that within a period of two years from the date of commencement of FEMA, it i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the decision, the Apex Court held thus : "Section 6 of the General Clauses Act has no application because there is no substantive vested right available to a party seeking revision under Section 115 of the Code. In Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. vs. Union of India it was observed that if a provision of statute is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission finds them, and if final relief has not been granted before the omission goes into effect, there is no scope for granting it afterwards. There is modification of this position by application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act or by making special provisions. Operation of repeal or deletion as to the future and the past largely depends on the savings applicable. In a case where a particular provision in the statute is omitted and in its place another provision dealing with the same contingency is introduced without a saving clause in favour of pending proceedings, then it can be reasonably inferred that the intention of the legislature is that the pending proceedings shall continue but a fresh proceeding for the same purpose may be initia....