SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

Cus - When there is nothing on record to show that appellant had connived with other three persons to import AA batteries under the guise of declaring goods as Calcium Carbonate, penalty imposed on appellant are set aside: HCCongress fields Rahul Gandhi from Rae Bareli and Kishori Lal Sharma from AmethiCus - The penalty imposed on assessee was set aside by Tribunal against which revenue is in appeal is far below the threshold limit fixed under Notification issued by CBDT, thus on the ground of monetary policy, revenue cannot proceed with this appeal: HCGST -Since both the SCNs and orders pertain to same tax period raising identical demand by two different officers of same jurisdiction, proceedings on SCNs are clubbed and shall be re-adjudicated by one proper officer: HCFormer Jharkhand HC Chief Justice, Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra appointed as President of GST TribunalSale of building constructed on leasehold land - GST implicationI-T - If assessee is not charging VAT paid on purchase of goods & services to its P&L account i.e., not claiming it as expenditure, there is no requirement to treat refund of such VAT as income: ITATBengal Governor restricts entry of State FM and local police into Raj BhawanI-T - Interest received u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 awarded by Court is capital receipt being integral part of enhanced compensation and is exempt u/s 10(37): ITATCops flatten camps of protesting students at Columbia UnivI-T - No additions are permitted on account of bogus purchases, if evidence submitted on purchase going into export and further details provided of sellers remaining uncontroverted: ITATTurkey stops all trades with Israel over GazaI-T- Provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(a) cannot be invoked, where a necessary condition of the money received without consideration by assessee, has not been fulfilled: ITATGirl students advised by Pak college to keep away from political eventsI-T- As per settled position in law, cooperative housing society can claim deduction u/s 80P, if interest is earned on deposit of own funds in nationalised banks: ITATApple reports lower revenue despite good start of the yearI-T- Since difference in valuation is minor, considering specific exclusion provision benefit is granted to assessee : ITATHome-grown tech of thermal camera transferred to IndustryI-T - Presumption u/s 292C would apply only to person proceeded u/s 153A and not for assessee u/s 153C: ITATECI asks parties to cease registering voters for beneficiary-oriented schemes under guise of surveys
 
FEMA - Right of Appeal under Section 19 - Department falls within meaning of expression 'aggrieved person' and is entitled to right of appeal: High Court

By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, MAY 04, 2016: THE appellant was held guilty of the charge under Section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. However, by a strange reasoning to the effect that the case was 9 years old and that there was an endeavour to complete the adjudication proceedings initiated under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 within a time frame, after the new Act, namely Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, came into effect, the Adjudicating Officer imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the appellant and Rs 1,00,000/- on the accomplice and ordered release of the currency.

The Special Director, Enforcement Directorate filed a Revision before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, under Section 54(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. This Revision was allowed by the Tribunal, modifying the order of the Adjudicating Officer and increasing the penalty imposed upon the appellant from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal also directed the confiscation of the amount of Rs.10 lakhs to the Government of India, under Section 63 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. It is against the said order that the appellant is before the High Court.

The appellant contended inter alia that a Special Director of Enforcement, entrusted with the duty of adjudication, cannot be treated to be an aggrieved person, so as to enable him to file a Revision or Appeal.

After hearing both sides, the High Court held:

+ The Department could be taken to be an aggrieved person and that the right of appeal under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 is conferred upon any aggrieved person. Since the Original Order of Adjudication was by the Collector of Customs, nominated under Section 16(1) of the Act, the appeal filed by the Special Director of Enforcement, before the Tribunal cannot be treated as not maintainable. The Department will come within the meaning of the expression "aggrieved person". Hence, the preliminary contention regarding the maintainability of the appeal filed by the respondents before the Tribunal, is liable to be rejected.

+ On merits, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, the appellant did not file any appeal as against the finding that he was guilty of violation of Section 9(1)(d) of the Act. The discretion supposedly exercised by the Original Authority to let off the appellant with a penalty of Rs.25,000/- cannot be approved. First of all, he had no such discretion. Even assuming that he had a discretion, the manner in which the first authority exercised the discretion and the reasoning given by him are wholly unsustainable. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference.

(See 2016-TIOL-869-HC-MAD-FEMA)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.

TOP NEWS

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST