FAO No. 3901 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 3901 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.2.2011 Mohan Lal @ Mohini .. Appellant v. Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R. L. Batta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Batta, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 17.4.2007, passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi (for short, `the Tribunal'). Briefly, the facts are that penalty of ` 5,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant for contravention of the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 vide order dated 30.10.1991. The appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal along with application for exemption from pre-deposit of the amount of penalty demanded by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal partially accepting the application directed for deposit of 25% of the amount as pre-condition for hearing of appeal. The same having not been deposited, the appeal was dismissed. It is against the aforesaid order that the appellant is before this court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not afforded opportunity of hearing while deciding his application for exemption from deposit of the amount of penalty before hearing the appeal. He further submitted that the appellant was not having any means to deposit the amount and considering his financial position, the Tribunal should have waived off the condition for pre-deposit. The submission was that even in FAO No. 3901 of 2007 [2] the case of Baldev Raj, against whom also penalty was levied along with the appellant, the appeal was heard without any pre-deposit. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The order levying penalty was passed by the Assessing Officer on 30.10.1991. As is evident from the impugned order, on 20.2.2004 the Tribunal directed for deposit of 25% of the amount of demand as a pre-condition for hearing of appeal on merits. It has further been noticed therein that till the appeal was taken up by the Tribunal for final hearing on 17.4.2007, the appellant did not comply with the condition of pre-deposit. He merely filed application before the Tribunal for hearing of appeal on merits by condoning the requirement of pre-deposit. The order passed by the Tribunal directing for pre-deposit was not challenged any further. Considering the aforesaid fact, no illegality can be found with the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the appellant on account of non-compliance of the condition for entertainment of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 15.2.2011 mk./