TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 823
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case is that a transaction in foreign exchange was undertaken by the Varanasi branch of the company Reliance Money Express Ltd. (RMEL) equivalent to Rs. 1,25,30,000/- with another company M/s. Global Forex & Travels, Varanasi, that both of them at the time of transaction did not hold any license from the RBI to conduct the said business of money exchange. The adjudicating authority held the appellants to have contravened provisions of Section 3(a), Section 4 and Section 10(4) of the FEMA, 1999. He also invoked the provisions of Section 42(2) of FEMA to penalise the employee Shri Dasgupta appellant No. 2 as above. 2. I have heard both the parties. The following submissions were made in the appeal as well as during the hearing by the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther penalties are imposed for all the offences alleged or for some offence. 2. They relied on the following judgment: a. Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. CBI, (2015), 4 SCC 609 b. Sitaram Motilal Kalal vs. Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt (1966) 3, SCR 527 c. Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. DRI, (2018) 8 SCC 271. 3. On behalf of second appellant Shri Souvik Dasgupta, it was submitted as follows: i. That the appellant was the zonal head of RMEL at the relevant time. ii. The instant case relates to October, 2009 when RMEL entered into transactions in foreign exchange amounting to Rs. 1,25,30,000 with M/S. Global Forex & Travels which was required by the company to fulfil an export order to Bahrain through its hub at Cochin. iii. That the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Bihar (1964) AIR SC 1184 b. Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. DRI, (2018) 8 SCC 271 4. On behalf of the respondent, the learned counsel stated the following: i. That branches are a part of the company, therefore, the company is responsible. She referred to the definition of a „person‟ in Section 2(u)(vii). ii. That the transaction has taken place is not denied and the benefit therefore has flown to the company. She referred to the adjudication order where it has been clearly brought out how the ultimate beneficiary of the illegal transaction was the company. iii. The act of filing a criminal complaint against their own employees by the company before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow clearly proves that the noticee compa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny as well as its branches separately, a fact which was reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellant, RMEL, Varanasi cannot take shelter under the main RMEL company located at Mumbai. From the emails as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is clear that the consignment was sent from Varanasi. It belies common sense that if the transaction had been undertaken by the Lucknow branch as the appellants have tried to argue at one stage then why should the money/consignment/package be not transferred from Lucknow to Cochin their hub and why carry it to Varanasi and then send it to Cochin. Even the statement of Shri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, State Head, Uttar Pradesh who reported to the zonal manager confirms that the co....