2017 (8) TMI 1723

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y 10% of the amount of penalty demanded from her as pre-condition for hearing of the appeal on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide impugned order dated 20.6.2008 passed by the Special Director of Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, New Delhi, penalty of Rs. 6 crores was levied on M/s Sachdeva & Sons Industries (P) Limited, Amritsar, for violation of Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act'). In addition, penalty of Rs. 3 crores each was levied on Ashok Sachdeva and the petitioner (Mrs. Indu Sachdeva), being the Directors of the aforesaid company for violation of Section 50 of the Act. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Special Director of Enforcement ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Limited, she had wrongly been issued notice for imposing penalty. The appeal filed by her against the order dated 20.6.2008 should have been entertained by the Tribunal without any precondition for deposit of any amount as that will be too harsh on her. She is not part of the business on account of any alleged violation for which penalty proceedings have been initiated. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that being director of M/s Sachdeva & Sons Rice Mills Limited, the petitioner was a partner in the firm M/s Sachdeva & Sons Industries. The deed of settlement was entered on 22.4.1997, to which the petitioner is a signatory. It finds mentioned in the Memorandum of Association of M/s Sachdeva & Sons Industries....