TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 964
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... up for joint disposal and CMA No. 1665 of 2016 is taken as a lead case. 2. CMA Nos. 1665 and 1946 of 2016 have been filed by the firm and the partner of the firm challenging the common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi (hereinafter called the Tribunal) in Order-in-Appeal Nos. 169 and 170/2010, dated 20-11-2014. The said common order was passed on the applications filed by the firm and the partner of the firm seeking to stay and waiver of pre-deposit in their challenge to the adjudication orders dated 28-5-2010 passed by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate. 3. CMA No. 1665 of 2016 was filed before this Court on 5-8-2016 questioning the correctness of the order dated 20-11-2014. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 or under the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000 ? 2. Is the Tribunal justified in rejecting the appeals for non-prosecution especially when it was apprised of the fact that statutory appeals in terms of Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, in CMA Nos. 1948 and 1665 of 2016 are pending before this Court along with connected stay applications and no final orders have been passed in the same ? And 3. Has the Tribunal, as a last Fact Finding Body, overlooked the cause of substantial justice and acted on what could be termed as technicalities in dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution under the impugned or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal dated 14-9-2018, which was communicated to the appellant on 25-9-2018, in and by which, the appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed for non-prosecution. The Tribunal recorded that for three years, the appellants did not appear for more than 13 hearings and opined that the appellants were not interested in pursuing the appeals. 8. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that pendency of the first set of appeals before this Court challenging the conditional order passed by the Tribunal dated 20-11-2014 was brought to the notice of the Tribunal. According to him, yet the Tribunal rejected the appeals. 9. We would be first required to decide as to whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contains a similar procedure. In the said Rules, Rule 20 enables the dismissal of the appeal for default. This Rule was challenged before a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Viral Laminates Private Limited v. Union of India [reported in 1998 (100) E.L.T. 335]. The Division Bench held that having regard to the scheme of the Act as well as the Customs Act, 1962, there was no manner of doubt that the appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal has got to be disposed of on merits and not for default of appearance of the appellant, that the Appellate Tribunal has to decide the issue ex parte, but dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution does not seem to be legally or even on equity grounds correct. The Division Bench re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the financial position pleaded by the appellants and their case that they are unable to realize export production in spite of their diligent efforts, we are of the considered view that the appellants have made out a prima facie case. However, this observation is made only for the purpose of imposing a condition on the appellants, so that the appeals before the Tribunal can be heard and disposed of on merits. 17. Accordingly, CMA Nos. 1665 and 1948 of 2016 are disposed of by slightly modifying the common order passed by the Tribunal by directing the appellants to deposit with the first respondent namely the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, 50% each of the penalty amounts imposed individually and furnish....