Page 122 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

8 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

company till 2004 as in evident from the annual report for the year 2003-04.
As he was in-charge and was responsible for the conduct of business of the
company at the time foreign exchange was remitted and goods were im-
ported, he also seems to be responsible for the violation of provisions of
FEMA and RBI guidelines supra. The AA may consider initiation of adjudi-
cation proceedings against Sh. Anirudh Rai Choudhary.
14. Since the relevant appeals have been decided their applications for
stay have become infructuous. The AA is directed to give effect to this or-
der.”
(emphasis supplied)
5. Being aggrieved, the Company, as well as the appellant carried the
matter before the High Court at Calcutta (for short, “the High Court”) by way of
FEA Nos. 17/2007 and 18/2007. Both appeals were dismissed by the High Court
vide judgment and order dated 17-9-2008. It noted the rival submissions and ob-
served thus : -
“After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and after going through
the materials on record placed before us, we are of the opinion that the vio-
lation which has been done by the appellant/petitioner, cannot be stated to
be a technical violation and it is well-settled law that contravention of the
said Act or Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 has created a strict lia-
bility. The violation of these two Acts would come within the meaning of
economic offence and cannot be treated as technical offence.
Hence, in our considered opinion, after initial committal and/or contraven-
tion of Section 10(6) of the said Act, the violation continues till the time,
compliance is made. Therefore, we hold that taking over the charge of the
appellate company in the year 2002, cannot absolve the appellant from the
liability and, in our considered opinion, the appellant company correctly
held as guilty on the face of the continuance of the offence.
Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the Learned Tribunal correctly
came to the conclusion and we do not find that there is any reason whatso-
ever to interfere with the order so passed by the Learned Tribunal. Accord-
ingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, both the appeals are disposed of.”
Against the decision of the High Court, the Company, as well as the appellant
preferred separate special leave petitions before this Court. The special leave pe-
tition filed by the Company, being SLP(C) No. 6897/2009 came to be dismissed
on 30-3-2009. By the same order, the Court issued notice on the special leave peti-
tion being SLP(C) No. 6551/2009 filed by the appellant, from which the present
appeal has arisen. The order reads thus : -
“Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6897 of 2009 is dismissed.
Keeping in view the contentions raised before us while dismissing S.L.P.
(C) No. 6897 of 2009, issue notice in S.L.P. (C) No. 6551 of 2009.”
Resultantly, what remains to be decided in the appeal preferred by the appellant
is limited to his argument that the appellant herein could not be made liable for
the contravention committed by the erstwhile management of the Company.
6. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
7. Be it noted that the contravention relates to the period of the year
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  170