Delhi High Court
Marubeni India P.Ltd. vs The Special Director Of ... on 11 February, 2014
Author: S. Muralidhar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
11.
+ CRL.A. No. 445 of 2007
MARUBENI INDIA P.LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: None.
versus
THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFOREMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
12.
+ CRL.A. No. 612 of 2006
SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFOREMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
13.
+ CRL.A. 614 of 2006
ERICSSON INDIA P.LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Rohini Musa, Advocate.
Advocate.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFOREMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2007 and batch Page 1 of 19
WITH
14.
+ CRL.A. No. 621 of 2006
NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
15.
+ CRL.A. No. 630 of 2006
MOTOROLA INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Nishant Joshi and Ms.
Suman Kukrety, Advocates.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
17.
+ CRL.A. No. 701 of 2006
KAJUHIKO YOSHIKAWA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
18.+ CRL.A. No. 702 of 2006
Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2007 and batch Page 2 of 19
TAKANOR ODA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
19.
+ CRL.A. No. 703 of 2006
HIROSHI YAMAGA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
20.+ CRL.A. No. 704 of 2006
NONUYUKI NORIMASTU ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
21.+ CRL.A. No. 705 of 2006
Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2007 and batch Page 3 of 19
H. KAMATA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
22.+ CRL.A. No. 706 of 2006
TOMOHIRO INOUE ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
23.
+ CRL.A. No. 707 of 2006
KAJUHIKO KOJIMA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
24.
+ CRL.A. No. 708 of 2006
KAORU HASEGAWA ..... Appellant
Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2007 and batch Page 4 of 19
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
25.
+ CRL.A. No. 709 of 2006
YU NINIOMIYA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
26.
+ CRL.A. No. 710 of 2006
KAZUO TSUKRUOKA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
27.
+ CRL.A. No. 711 of 2006
TOSHIMI SAITO ..... Appellant
Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2007 and batch Page 5 of 19
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
28.
+ CRL.A. No. 712 of 2006
YOSHIO KUBO ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
29.
+ CRL.A. No. 713 of 2006
NAOKI MATSUMOTO ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
30.+ CRL.A. No. 714 of 2006
KOJI MIHARA ..... Appellant
Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2007 and batch Page 6 of 19
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
31.
+ CRL.A. No. 715 of 2006
YOJI ISHIKAWA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
32.
+ CRL.A. No. 716 of 2006
MASAO ITO ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
33.
+ CRL.A. No. 717 of 2006
NABUTOMO FUJIMORI ..... Appellant
Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2007 and batch Page 7 of 19
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
34.
+ CRL.A. No. 718 of 2006
YOSHIHIR UMEDA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
35.
+ CRL.A. No. 719 of 2006
YUMIKI ABE ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
36.
+ CRL.A. No. 720 of 2006
KIMIHIRO ITOKI ..... Appellant
Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2007 and batch Page 8 of 19
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
37.
+ CRL.A. No. 721 of 2006
YASOHERO SHIMOYAMA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
38.
+ CRL.A. No. 722 of 2006
HIDENORI TANAKA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
WITH
39.
+ CRL.A. No. 723 of 2006
MASAYOSHI OKABE ..... Appellant
Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2007 and batch Page 9 of 19
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
AND
40.
+ CRL.A. No. 724 of 2006
HIROSHI SHIRAKI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Rajat Juneja, Advocates.
versus
SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naveen Kumar Matta,
Advocate.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
ORDER
% 11.02.2014
1. These appeals are directed against the impugned orders passed by the
Foreign Exchange Appellate Tribunal ('AT') dismissing the appellants'
respective appeals against the adjudication orders ('AOs') passed by the
Special Director ('SD'), Enforcement Directorate ('ED') holding the
Appellants guilty of contravening Section 8 (1) of the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1973 ('FERA') and imposing penalty under Section 50
FERA.
2. The Appellants in these appeals are Indian subsidiaries of their
respective parent corporations incorporated outside India. Barring the
above distinction, the issue that arises in these appeals is similar to the
issue that was decided by the Court in its judgment dated 3rd February
2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2008 (Mitsubishi Corporation v.
Director of Enforcement) and in the judgment passed today in a batch of
criminal appeals beginning with Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 2006 (Fuji
Bank Ltd. v. Special Director of Enforcement). Both the said sets of
cases involved liaison or branch offices of foreign parent corporations.
3. The Court has heard the submissions of learned Senior counsel and
counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, learned Senior
counsel on behalf of the Respondent.
4. In all these cases the challenge before the AT was to the AOs passed by
the ED holding each of the Appellants guilty of contravening Section 8
(1) FERA and imposing penalty. The AT has, by the impugned orders
which have been challenged in these appeals, affirmed the AOs.
5. Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the Respondent sought to distinguish the present set of appeals from
those decided in Mitsubishi Corporation and Fuji Bank Ltd. on the
ground that the Appellants herein are Indian subsidiaries which are the de
facto employers of the expatriate employees seconded to them by the
foreign holding company. Mr. Panda referred to the Foreign Exchange
Control Manual of 1999 ('FECM') and in particular to Clause 11D.3(i)
thereof and submitted that inasmuch as there was a violation of the
requirement thereunder, there was a consequential violation of Section 8
(1) FERA.
6. The Court notes in the first instance that the allegation in the show
cause notices (SCNs) issued in these cases by the ED to each of the
Appellants is identical. The purport of the identical allegations by the ED
in each SCN is that payments made abroad by the foreign corporation to
the expatriate employees in foreign exchange was in effect payments
made on behalf of the Indian subsidiary and since that payment was
essentially the liability of the Indian subsidiary it could not have been
made without the prior permission of the RBI. No other allegation is made
to bring home the charge of violation of Sections 8 (1) and 9 (1) (c) FERA
by the Appellants. In other words the SCNs make no reference to
violation of any clause of the FECM. Nevertheless, the Court has
examined Clause 11D.3 of the FECM which reads as under:
"11D.3 (i) Foreign nationals who are not permanently
resident in India but are in regular employment with
Indian firms/companies on payment of monthly salary,
are permitted to make recurring remittances for family
maintenance. Authorised dealers may allow such foreign
nationals, who are their regular constituents, to make
recurring remittances for family maintenance, etc.,upto
75% of their net salary (i.e. after deduction of
contribution to provident, etc., funds and taxes payable)
after verifying that they hold valid employment visas. On
request, authorized dealers may also allow remittances in
excess of 75% of net salary provided the foreign nationals
is in receipt of perquisites in India such as free housing,
conveyance and medical facilities and his family (wife
and/or children) is resident outside India.
(ii) Salaries to the employees deputed by foreign
companies to their India offices/branches/subsidiaries/
joint ventures may be paid abroad to the extent of 75% of
the net salary (tax to be paid for the full amount in India)
and balance amount of salary may be paid in India."
7. In the first place it must be noticed that the foreign nationals in these
cases are not employees of the Indian subsidiaries but have only been
seconded to them. The foreign holding company continued to pay the
salaries of the expatriate employees abroad in foreign exchange. The
Indian subsidiary only paid in Indian rupees a portion of the salary that
was necessary to sustain the living of such expatriate employee in India.
This is evident from the replies sent by the Appellants to the ED in
response to the SCNs issued to them. Illustratively, the stand of Sony
India Limited in reply to the SCN issued to it was under:
"From the enclosed details, it can be seen that these employees
were getting the following emoluments in and outside of India:
Paid in Japan
a. Base Salary (continuation pay as it may be called) paid to
maintain the continued employment of these employees with
Sony Corporation;
b. Japanese Salary paid as per their entitlement;
c. Year end Bonus paid only to Mr Yoshio Kubo, as per company
policy;
d. Hardship Allowance paid to compensate these employees to
relocate to India;
e. Education Allowance paid only to Mr Nobuyuki Norimatsu as
his children were pursuing education outside India;
f. Leave Travel Assistance paid to meet the cost of travel of these
employees from India to their home country and back.
We confirm that these were paid by Sony Corporation, Japan, our
parent company. Please note that these numbers have been stated
in Japanese Yen. As the exchange rate varies on a daily basis these
numbers in rupee equivalent would vary from month to month.
Paid in India
In India these employees were entitled to the following emoluments
in India provided by Sony India;
a. Fixed monthly salary paid to sustain their living in India;
b. Perquisites (non-monetary)
i. Rent free furnished accommodation.
ii. Car with driver
iii. Watchman
iv. Medical assistance
v. Food assistance
vi. Utilities, viz. Electricity & water
vii. Membership of Japanese Association in India"
8. Sony India Limited further clarified on 28th May 2002 as under:
"At the outset we state and confirm that no salaries have been paid
outside India by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. to expatriate employees
working in India. Therefore, since no remittance of Foreign
Exchange was involved, we were not required to make any
application to RBI for approval.
........
........
We once again reiterate that all Salaries / Perquisites paid by Sony
India Pvt. Ltd. have been paid in Indian Rupees and no Foreign
Exchange has been remitted outside India. Also all taxes applicable
under Indian Income Tax Act'1961 have been paid by Sony India
Pvt. Ltd. and requisite returns have been filed with Tax
Authorities."
9. Mr. Panda was candid that no facts have been found by the ED to
counter the above assertions. It is, therefore, plain that even according to
the ED in none of these cases was there any allegation that an expatriate
employee of the Indian subsidiary was seeking to remit abroad in foreign
exchange monies paid to him in India in Indian rupees. In the
circumstances, the Court fails to appreciate how Para 11D.3 FECM would
apply at all. The case of violation of the requirement of that clause of the
FECM by the Appellants is misconceived.
10. Also, in light of the ED being unable to counter the factual position
explained in the above replies to the SCNs, it is evident that there was a
basic misconception on the part of the ED that the expatriate employees of
the foreign holding companies upon being seconded to the corresponding
Indian subsidiary ceased to the employees of the respective foreign
company and further that the payments made by the foreign holding
company to its employees abroad were on behalf of the Indian subsidiary.
There was absolutely no basis for the ED to make such an assumption.
11. This Court does not wish to repeat what has already been held by it in
Mitsubishi Corporation and Fuji Bank Ltd. However, the following
portions of the judgment in Mitsubishi Corporation in the context of
expatriate employees of foreign corporation being seconded to Indian
liaison offices (LOs) would equally apply to the present appeals as well:
"17. In order to appreciate the above submissions, an
analysis is proposed to be undertaken of Section 8(1) of
the FERA, which reads as under:
"Except with the previous general or special
permission of the Reserve Bank, no person other
than an authorized dealer shall in India, and no
person resident in India other than an authorized
dealer shall outside India, purchase or otherwise
acquire or borrow from, or sell, or otherwise
transfer or lend to or exchange with, any person not
being an authorized dealer, any foreign
exchange....."
18. Under Section 8 (1) (b) FERA, there is a prohibition
on a person "other than an authorized dealer" purchasing,
acquiring or borrowing or selling or otherwise
transferring or lending or exchange with any person not
being an authorized dealer, any foreign exchange either in
India or outside India. The question that then arises is
whether on the facts of the present case, the Appellant can
be said to have "purchased or otherwise acquired or
borrowed" any foreign exchange in India.
19. The AT has proceeded on the basis that the employees
of the parent corporation, seconded to the Appellant, are
its "borrowed employees". The fact of the matter is that
the expatriated employees of the HO, are posted in India
with the LO, continue to be employees of the parent
corporation. The salaries payable to them by the parent
corporation were partly paid in India, and for that limited
purpose, the funds were remitted by Mitsubishi, Japan
which were then disbursed by the Appellant to such
seconded employees. By no means, could it be said that
the expatriated employees upon being seconded to the
Appellant ceased to be the employees of the parent
corporation. They were only seconded to the Appellant.
They could not be termed as "borrowed employees" of
the Appellant. The liability to pay their salaries continues
to be that of the parent corporation. Since there was no
privity of contract between the Appellant and the
expatriated employees of the HO, there was no liability
on the Appellant to pay their salaries. In the
circumstances, the question of the Appellant "acquiring"
any foreign exchange as a result of Mitsubishi Japan
remitting funds to the Appellant for disbursal of the
salaries of the employees seconded to it does not arise.
Further, the question of the Appellant "repaying"
Mitsubishi, Japan the sum paid as salaries also does not
arise."
12. In the present appeals, the ED has not been able to counter the factual
position that no salaries were been paid outside India by the Indian
subsidiary to expatriate employees working in India. There was, therefore,
no remittance of foreign exchange involved. The question of taking the
approval of the RBI for making payment in Indian rupees to the expatriate
employees in India did not arise. Also all taxes applicable under the
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 have been paid by the Indian subsidiary and
requisite returns have been filed with tax authorities. The mere fact that
income tax has been paid by the Indian subsidiary does not ipso facto
attract Section 8 (1) FERA. In any event, that is not even the allegation in
the SCNs issued to the Appellants. It is not open to the ED to justify the
AOs on a ground other than that stated in the SCN. In fact, the AT itself
rejected the plea raised on behalf of the ED that it should address
questions that did not form the subject matter of the SCNs which led to
passing of the AOs.
13. With the AOs in each of these cases holding that the case of the ED
regarding violation by the Appellants of Section 9 (1) (c) FERA was not
made out, the case regarding violation of Section 8 (1) FERA was
untenable since the SCNs in all these cases set out the same allegations to
justify the case under both provisions. The question of the Appellants
"acquiring" or "otherwise transferring" any foreign exchange as a result
of the foreign holding company remitting funds to the Appellants for
disbursal of the salaries of the employees seconded to them did not arise.
Further, the question of the Appellants having to repay the foreign holding
company the sum paid abroad also did not arise. Factually, there was no
attempt made by any of the Appellants to repay any such amount to the
foreign holding company.
14. Also, no reasons have been given in any of the AOs for the penalty
imposed in terms of Section 50 FERA. Consequently, in all these cases,
the determination of the penalty amount by the AOs is also held to be
untenable in law.
15. In light of the decisions in Mitsubishi Corporation and Fuji Bank
Ltd. and for the reasons explained above, the impugned AOs to the extent
they hold the Appellants to be in violation of Section 8 (1) FERA and
impose penalty, and the impugned orders of the AT upholding the said
AOs, are hereby set aside. The appeals are allowed in the above terms
with costs of Rs. 10,000 in each appeal which will be paid by the
Respondent to each of the Appellants within a period of four weeks from
today.
16. It is further directed that any amount deposited pursuant to the AO or
the impugned order of the AT shall be refunded to each of the Appellants,
together with interest, if any, accrued thereon, within a period of eight
weeks from today in accordance with law. Further the bank guarantees if
any furnished by the Appellants shall stands discharged.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
FEBRUARY 11, 2014
Rk
