2024 (9) TMI 938

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....referred to challenge the order dated 20.09.2000 passed by the Adjudicating Officer in reference to several Show Cause Notices (SCNs) and so far as the appellant Mrs. A.A. Parekh is concerned, it is SCN No. IV and in pursuance to the adjudication, the penalty of Rs.900/- was imposed against her for the contravention of Section 4(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (in short `FERA, 1947'). Taking into consideration the amount of penalty, the learned counsel for the appellant did not press the appeal as otherwise the matter is old by more than 23 years after the order of the Adjudicating Officer. The prayer was, however, that the order should not be taken adverse for any other purpose to which no objection was raised by the counse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant on 08.04.1986, order was not passed for years together, rather to the surprise of the appellant, the Adjudicating Officers did not hear the matter and thus passed the order without providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has made reference of Para 48 of the impugned order where a reference of personal hearing to the appellant A.P. Parekh on 08.04.1986 has been given. The hearing was given by the then Adjudicating Officer when Shri NavnitKamani along with Shri Parag Kamani, Advocate and others appeared apart from the presence of the then Assistant Director of the Department. The request for separate hearing was made even by Shri NavnitKamani. However, he was asked to send the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....record. Accordingly, this Tribunal may pass an appropriate order. 7. We have considered the rival submissions on the issue and perused the record. The appellant has raised an issue regarding denial of opportunity of hearing and the relevant para of the appeal is quoted hereunder for ready reference: "x. That the appellant filed his reply and denied the allegation, inter-alia, stating that the allegation are misconceived, vague and untenable and also prayed for separate hearing and for giving all the relied upon documents including the cross examination of Sh R.R. Kamani. On request the personal hearing was granted to appellant separately by the erstwhile Special Director as back as on 8-4-1986. None of the other noticees objecte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this request. None of the parties, however, objected to Sh. A.P. Parekh being heard separately as he was not a member of the Kamani family and was not one of the beneficiaries. The adjudicator explained the charges to all concerned & the matter was argued at some length before the said officer..." 9. The perusal of the order shows that while the request for separate hearing was made by the two other noticee, they were asked to submit written submissions for it while no objection was raised by any of the noticee for separate hearing of the appellant. The order, however, says that the appeal was heard in part. The perusal of the record does not show that the appellant was ever given an opportunity of hearing subsequently. It is in....