TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 1428
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to Rs. Fifty lakhs (each) on all the four noticees i.e. M/S India Export House (Regd), Shri O. P. Duggal (applicant/appellant), Shri Dinesh Bhailc & Shri Jaspal Singh respectively, for the contraventions of section 18(2) & 18(3) FERA, 1973 read with the notification No, F.1/67/EC/73-1&11 both dated 1.1.1974, for refraining from taking action which had effect, that export value to the tune of Rs. 3,59,75,916:,44 in respect of goods exported abroad under the cover of 16 G.R.I, forms as per details mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the Memorandum & Addendum to Memorandum had not so far been received in India by the said noticee firm M/s India Export House (Regd), who was engaged in export of Ready Made Garments (RMG) to various countries,' wherein Shri C.F. Duggal (applicant/appellant) was one of the partners of the noticee firm. 2. Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi vide their letter No.EC/DH.XII/13/l-660/91-92, dated 19.12.1991 had reported that the noticee firm M/s India Export House (Regd) exported goods worth Rs. 972,000/ US $2,16,000/-duly declared on the GRI form No. GN.435632 & GN.435633|both, dated 29.12.1990, but failed to realize the export proceeds. On the basis o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The applicant/appellant received the copy of the Adjudication Order No. SDE(KRB)/111/35/2000, dated 15.11.2000 passed by the Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi for the first time on 15.9.2012 in the court of ACMM. It is further submitted that the present appeal is filed within 45 days from the date of receipt of order, dated 15.09.2012 as on 29.10.2012. In case the Tribunal deems that there is a delay: on the part the appellant then, the same was neither intentional nor deliberately, but for the bonafide reasons as stated in the affidavits as well as in the application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. Hence, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay. It is further submitted that the period for filing an appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority is 45 days, but the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of 45 days, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period. Hence, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In support of his version, Ld. Counsel -for the applicant/appellant placed on record the affidavit of the appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aspal Singh respectively, for the contraventions of section 18(2) A 18(3) of FERA, 1973 read with the notification no. F.l/67/EC/73-11&11 both dated 1.1.1974, Hence, reasonable opportunity was given to the applicant/appellant for hearing &. all these facts were in the knowledge of the applicant /appellant, which is clear from the order of the Adjudicating Authority. Id. ALA further submitted that the story put forth by the applicant/appellant is a mere concoction as it is not reliable and convincing because the Ld. Advocates S/Sh Ashutosh and Sanjeev Kumar appeared on; behalf of all the noticees before the Adjudicating \ Authority by way of filing vakalatanama on 26.4.1999 & received the SCN &, the documents. This fact was also perused & observed by the Tribunal-in its interim order, dated 6.8.2014, where there was no denial on the part of the applicant/appellant through Counsel. It is further added that the Adjudication Order, dated 15.11:2000 was duly served upon the applicant/appellant. It is further submitted that the applicant/appellant has filed the present appeal U/S 52 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 &. so, there is a stringent condition and an outer limit of 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the State and its agencies/instrumentalities, the Court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the decision making process but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the public interest". In the judgment of Living Media India Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para nos-28 & 29, observed as under:- "28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of l....