TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (12) TMI 429
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 has been imposed on the appellant in Appeal No. 186 of 1995 for the same contravention by invoking the provisions of section 68(1) of the Act. 2. The appellants filed their applications for dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit. Shri Madhu Patel, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that in view of the evidence that the appellants had initiated legal action by engaging a law firm after reporting the matter to the Reserve Bank and obtained the decree of US $ 3,87,027,59 (against the alleged outstanding of US $79,519) in their favour, which is under execution, there is no justification for holding the appellants guilty of contravention of section 18(2) as the presumption under section 18(3) s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri Patel that some of the relevant facts as recorded in the impugned order are factually incorrect. It is not possible, nor necessary, in these proceedings to go into the question whether the wrong facts are deliberately stated, but it cannot be denied that such wrong statement of relevant facts has resulted in miscarriage of justice. For example, I do not find any statement of Shri Chandravadan I. Parikh, that he had not made any application for getting the time period extended, though it is so recorded by the learned Adjudicating Officer in his findings. In fact, there is nothing regarding the extension of time in Shri Parikh's statement recorded under section 40 of the Act on 23-12-1992. It is clear from the first page of the impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cember 1992, after having failed in their personal efforts with the buyer, cannot be considered to be unduly delayed. 5. The learned Adjudicating Officer has also misconceived the evidence of unsigned copy of the agreement dated 24-12-1992. It has been brought out in the memorandum of appeal that the proposal as contained in the draft agreement was sent by the foreign buyer to the appellants and the appellants approached the RBI for their advice in January 1993. The RBI vide their reply dated 17-8-1993 did not give permission for the offer contained in the agreement. The so-called agreement, which was obviously in the nature of an offer, had no legal consequences at all. The learned Adjudicating Officer himself has recorded that the agreem....