VED DEWAN Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, JALANDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 2.12.2009, the following contentions of learned counsel for the appellant were noticed and learned counsel representing the respondent had sought time to go through the order passed by the CESTAT, which was upheld by this court:-

(2.) As is evident from the facts noticed above, the penalty on the appellant was levied with the allegations that he had not used the foreign exchange for the purpose it was released to him whereas in the order passed by the CESTAT, which was confirmed by this court, it has been established that the appellant had, in fact, imported iron and steel scrap for which he had got the foreign exchange. Once it is established from the orders passed by the CESTAT as upheld by this court that the appellant had imported the material which is iron and steel scrap and the foreign exchange was issued to the appellant for that purpose only, it cannot be said that there is any violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short, "the Act"). If violation is not established, penalty on the appellant cannot be levied. Infact, as is evident from the proceedings, the levy of penalty on the appellant under the Act was upheld by noticing that the appellant had not challenged the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the Custom Act which was, in fact, not correct as subsequently that order was set aside by the CESTAT, as upheld by this court.

(3.) Considering the aforesaid facts, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside.