TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (2) TMI 606
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not been released on the plea that the said order of the Board did not finally dispose of the appeal. In view thereof, on the one hand, the appellant has been deprived of the benefit of the said amount which would have grown manifold and on the other, the respondents have deprived the benefit of the said amount to the detriment of the appellant. He further stated that the penalty of Rs. 35,000 had been imposed on the appellant on the premises that he had been held guilty on two counts, namely, contravention of section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act') whereas this Board has upheld the finding of contravention of section 9(1)(d) alone. He submitted that it is only logical that the amount o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... He submitted that since the order of contravention has gone, the amount of penalty should be enhanced at least by Rs. 2,10,000. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties. I find it difficult to accept Shri Gadoo's contentions that in view of this Board's observations in para 18, the only question now for determination of the Board is the quantum of enhanced penalty and not the question whether the penalty should be enhanced or not. In my opinion, there is no justification for reading the order in the restricted sense as suggested by Shri Gadoo. The parties are heard in pursuance of the requirements of section 52(5) of the Act as indicated in para 18 of the said order. Under the said provisions, the appellants are....