(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) Present appeals arise against the common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the FERA whereby the appeal is allowed and the orders for imposition of penalty are set aside.
We have heard Mr. Lalakia, learned Counsel for the Department-appellant and Mr. Gaurav Mathur, for the respondent. Learned Counsel for both the sides have produced compilation of the documents showing the Show Cause Notice, Order in Original which were part of the record in the proceedings of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Show Cause Notice on the basis of which the final order is passed at para 8 reads as under:
"NOW THEREFORE,the said M/s. Dairy Den (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad and Shri Harish F. Shah, Managing Director of the said Company, are hereby required to show cause in writing (in duplicate) within 10 days from the date of receipt of this Memorandum, why Adjudication Proceedings as contemplated in Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973) should not be held against them for the said contravention;"
In response to the said Show Cause Notice, reply was submitted by the Noticee and thereafter instead of taking the decision for initiation of adjudication proceedings as contemplated under section 51, order is passed for imposition of penalty. It is hardly required to be stated that after said show cause notice, it was open to the officer concerned to take decision for initiation of adjudication proceedings as per section 51 of the FERA and if such decision is taken, it would call for adjudication of the case and thereafter only, the order could be passed for imposition of penalty. The Appellate Tribunal has, therefore, rightly found that there was no adjudication. Of course, the language used by the Appellate Tribunal is "investigation". It is not the case of the Department that after the show cause notice dated 23rd June, 1998, the decision was taken for adjudication and thereafter, there was adjudication and there was another show cause notice or penalty was imposed thereafter. Under the circumstances, when the proceedings are quasi criminal in nature, in absence of any adjudication under section 51, the Tribunal has rightly quashed the order for imposition of penalty. Consequently, no questions of law as sought to be canvassed would arise.
Under the circumstances, no interference is called for. Appeals are meritless. Hence dismissed.
(Jayant Patel,J.) (C.L.
Soni,J.) an vyas Top