LAWS(MAD)-2017-4-232

UNION OF INDIA Vs. MAARS SOFTWARE INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Decided On April 18, 2017
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
MAARS SOFTWARE INTERNATIONAL LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue has filed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in C.M.A. Nos. 1997 and 1998 of 2010 before this Court, against the common order dated 7-1-2010 in Appeal Nos. 166 and 176 of 2008, passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi and directing the Enforcement Directorate to refund the amount of pre-deposit within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The Company has filed the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 15793 of 2010, seeking for a direction to the respondents to refund the pre-deposited penalty amount of Rs. 1 crore and Rs. 25 lakhs to the company/1st and 2nd petitioners respectively, along with due interest and comply with the order dated 7-1-2010 of the 5th respondent Tribunal and pass further orders. As the issue involved arises from the same order, the appeals and writ petition are taken up for disposal, all together.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows:-

(3.) Therefore, the company filed W.P. Nos. 1171 and 1172 of 2004 praying to prohibit the Special Director of Enforcement, Mumbai from taking further steps in the matter. By order dated 8-11-2004, this Court disposed of the writ petitions, transferring the proceedings to the Special Director of Enforcement, Delhi for further adjudication, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either parties. The Special Director of Enforcement, Delhi has been vested with the jurisdiction for cases relating to Chennai Zone, as per the department notification dated 1-6-2000. Pursuant to the order of this Court, proceedings were transferred to the Special Director of Enforcement, Delhi and both the parties placed their materials and advanced their arguments before him. After hearing the submissions made by the parties and on considering the materials on record, the Special Director of Enforcement, Delhi passed an order dated 13-3-2008, holding that the appellant company is guilty of contravention of Section 8 of the Act, read with Regulation 3 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Realization, Repatriation and Surrender of Foreign Exchange) Regulations, 2000 and also read with Regulation 9 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000 and imposed the following penalties, payable by the company:-