Case: Ketan V. Parekh Vs. Special Director,Dir.Of Enforcement&amp;Anr

be allowed to indulge in forum shopping. It has not at all surprised us that after having made a prayer that the writ petitions filed by them be treated as appeals under Section 35, two of the appellants filed applications for recall of that order. No doubt, the learned Single Judge accepted their prayer and the Division Bench confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge but the manner in which the appellants prosecuted the writ petitions before the Delhi High Court leaves no room for doubt that they had done so with the sole object of delaying compliance of the direction given by the Appellate Tribunal and, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that they were bona fide prosecuting remedy before a wrong forum. Rather, there was total absence of good faith, which is sine qua non for invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act.24. The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. By taking advantage of the liberty given by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, the appellants invoked the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Section 35 of the Act. However, while doing so, they violated the time limit specified in order dated 26.7.2010 which, in turn, is based on paragraph 45 of the judgment of this Court in Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement (supra). Indeed, it is not even the case of the appellants that they had filed appeals under Section 35 of the Act within 30 days computed from 26.7.2010. Therefore, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court rightly observed that even though the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to grant time to the appellants to file appeals is highly debatable, the time specified in the order passed by the Delhi High Court cannot be extended.25. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity.26. Notwithstanding the above conclusion, we have considered the submission of Shri Ranjit Kumar that the appellants are facing huge financial crises and the Appellate Tribunal committed serious error by not entertaining their prayer to dispense with the requirement of deposit of the amount of penalty in its entirety, but have not felt convinced. In our considered view, the appellants miserably failed to make out a case, which could justify an order by the Appellate Tribunal to relieve them of the statutory obligation to deposit the amount of penalty. The appellants have the exclusive knowledge of their financial condition/status and it was their duty to candidly disclose all their assets, movable and immovable including those in respect of which orders of attachment may have been passed by the judicial and quasi judicial forums. However, instead of coming clean, they tried to paint a gloomy picture about their financial position, which the Appellate Tribunal rightly refused to accept. If what was stated in the applications filed by the appellants and affidavit dated 10.10.2008 is correct, then the appellants must be in a state of begging which not even a man of ordinary prudence will be prepared to accept. To us, it is clear that the appellants deliberately concealed the facts relating to their financial condition. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal did not commit any error by refusing to entertain their prayer for total exemption. 27. In this context, reference can usefully be made to the judgment of this Court in Benara Values Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2006) 13 SCC 347 . In that case, a two Judge Bench interpreted Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is pari materia to Section 19(1) of the Act, referred to the judgments in Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das (1984) 2 SCC 436 , Samarias Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v. S. Samuel (1984) 4 SCC 666 , Commissioner of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985) 1 SCC 260 and observed: "Two significant expressions used in the provisions are "undue hardship to such person" and "safeguard the interests of the Revenue". Therefore, while dealing with the application twin requirements of considerations i.e. consideration of undue hardship aspect and imposition of conditions to safeguard the interests of the Revenue have to be kept in view.As noted above there are two important expressions in Section 35-F. One is undue hardship. This is a matter within the special knowledge of the applicant for waiver and has to be established by him. A mere assertion about undue hardship would not be sufficient. It was noted by this Court in S. Vasudeva v. State of Karnataka that under Indian conditions expression "undue hardship" is normally related to economic hardship. "Undue" which means something which is not merited by the conduct of the claimant, or is very much disproportionate to it. Undue hardship is caused when the hardship is not warranted by the circumstances.For a hardship to be "undue" it must be shown that the particular burden to observe or perform the requirement is out of proportion to the nature of the requirement itself, and the benefit which the applicant would derive from compliance with it.The word "undue" adds something more than just hardship. It means an excessive hardship or a hardship greater than the circumstances warrant.The other aspect relates to imposition of condition to safeguard the interests of the Revenue. This is an aspect which the Tribunal has to bring into focus. It is for the Tribunal to impose such conditions as are deemed proper to safeguard the interests of the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal while dealing with the application has to consider materials to be placed by the assessee relating to undue hardship and also to stipulate conditions as required to safeguard the interests of the Revenue." 28. The same view was reiterated in Indu Nissan Oxo Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (2007) 13 SCC 487 by considering proviso to Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962, which is almost identical to Section 19 of the Act. 29.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]A careful reading of the above reproduced averments shows that there was not even a whisper in the applications field by the appellants that they had been prosecuting remedy before a wrong forum, i.e. the Delhi High Court with due diligence and in good faith. Not only this, the prayer made in the applications was for condonation of 1056 days delay and not for exclusion of the time spent in prosecuting the writ petitions before the Delhi High Court. This shows that the appellants were seeking to invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which, as mentioned above, cannot be pressed into service in view of the language of Section 35 of the Act and interpretation of similar provisions by this Court.23. There is another reason why the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be extended to the appellants. All of them are well conversant with various statutory provisions including FEMA. One of them was declared a notified person under Section 3(2) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 and several civil and criminal cases are pending against him. The very fact that they had engaged a group of eminent Advocates to present their cause before the Delhi and the Bombay High Courts shows that they have the assistance of legal experts and this seems to the reason why they invoked the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and not of the Bombay High Court despite the fact that they are residents of Bombay and have been contesting other matters including the proceedings pending before the Special Court at Bombay. It also appears that the appellants were sure that keeping in view their past conduct, the Bombay High Court may not interfere with the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, they took a chance before the Delhi High Court and succeeded in persuading learned Single Judge of the Court to entertain their prayer for stay of further proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal. The promptness with which the learned senior counsel appearing for appellant - Kartik K. Parekh made a statement before the Delhi High Court on 7.11.2007 that the writ petition may be converted into an appeal and considered on merits is a clear indication of the appellants unwillingness to avail remedy before the High Court, i.e. the Bombay High Court which had the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under Section 35 of the Act. It is not possible to believe that as on 7.11.2007, the appellants and their Advocates were not aware of the judgment of this Court in Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2007) 6 SCC 769 whereby dismissal of the writ petition by the Delhi High Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction was confirmed and it was observed that the parties cannot be allowed to indulge in forum shopping. It has not at all surprised us that after having made a prayer that the writ petitions filed by them be treated as appeals under Section 35, two of the appellants filed applications for recall of that order. No doubt, the learned Single Judge accepted their prayer and the Division Bench confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge but the manner in which the appellants prosecuted the writ petitions before the Delhi High Court leaves no room for doubt that they had done so with the sole object of delaying compliance of the direction given by the Appellate Tribunal and, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that they were bona fide prosecuting remedy before a wrong forum. Rather, there was total absence of good faith, which is sine qua non for invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act.24. The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. By taking advantage of the liberty given by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, the appellants invoked the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Section 35 of the Act. However, while doing so, they violated the time limit specified in order dated 26.7.2010 which, in turn, is based on paragraph 45 of the judgment of this Court in Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement (supra). Indeed, it is not even the case of the appellants that they had filed appeals under Section 35 of the Act within 30 days computed from 26.7.2010. Therefore, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court rightly observed that even though the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to grant time to the appellants to file appeals is highly debatable, the time specified in the order passed by the Delhi High Court cannot be extended.25. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity.26. Notwithstanding the above conclusion, we have considered the submission of Shri Ranjit Kumar that the appellants are facing huge financial crises and the Appellate Tribunal committed serious error by not entertaining their prayer to dispense with the requirement of deposit of the amount of penalty in its entirety, but have not felt convinced. In our considered view, the appellants miserably failed to make out a case, which could justify an order by the Appellate Tribunal to relieve them of the statutory obligation to deposit the amount of penalty. The appellants have the exclusive knowledge of their financial condition/status and it was their duty to candidly disclose all their assets, movable and immovable including those in respect of which orders of attachment may have been passed by the judicial and quasi judicial forums. However, instead of coming clean, they tried to paint a gloomy picture about their financial position, which the Appellate Tribunal rightly refused to accept. If what was stated in the applications filed by the appellants and affidavit dated 10.10.2008 is correct, then the appellants must be in a state of begging which not even a man of ordinary prudence will be prepared to accept. To us, it is clear that the appellants deliberately concealed the facts relating to their financial condition. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal did not commit any error by refusing to entertain their prayer for total exemption.