The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Director of Enforcement was not empowered to file the appeal, and it could only be filed by the Central Government, based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Gokal Chand Mital, J.

1. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent that there is no competent appeal before this Court which can be decided on merits as the Director of Enforcement was not empowered to file any appeal and it was only the Central Government which could file the appeal. In support of the argument, reliance is placed on Director of Enforcement, Madras V/s. Rama Arangannal and Anr. , AIR1981 Mad 80 , (1981 )1 MLJ62 which is a direct decision on the point and is on all fours with the facts of the case. Therein an order was passed by the Deputy Director of Enforcement under Sec.51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter called "the Act" ). That order was challenged by the aggrieved party by filing an appeal before the Appellate Board under Sec.52 of the Act. The Appellate Board allowed the appeal and against the order of the Appellate Board the Director of Enforcement filed second appeal under Sec.54 of the Act before the Madras High Court. When the appeal came up for hearing, an objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the Director of Enforcement had no authority to file the appeal and since the same was incompetent that should be dismissed. The argument prevailed before the Madras High Court and it was held that the Director of Enforcement had no authority to file the appeal and the same could be filed only by the Central Government.

2. Here also the matter was adjudicated by the Deputy Director of Enforcement, who had imposed the penalty. The aggrieved party went up in appeal and the same was allowed, and after giving benefit of doubt the order imposing the penalty was set aside. Against the order of the Appellate Board, the Director of Enforcement has filed this appeal.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Director of Enforcement has not been able to show that the decision of the Madras High Court does not lay down correct law, nor has (he) been able to show that the Director of Enforcement has been authorised either by a statute or by any order of the Central Government to file the appeal.

4. Faced with this situation, the learned Counsel for the Director of Enforcement has argued that the respondent had impleaded the Director of Enforcement in the appeal which was filed by him before the Appellate Board and therefore the respondent cannot raise this argument now. Once it is held that this appeal is incompetent, then this argument cannot be decided here. The Director of Enforcement should have raised the argument before the Appellate Board. A reading of the order of the Appellate Board shows that no such argument was raised before it.

5. However, nothing said in this order would come in the way of the Central Government if it wishes to impugne the order of the Appellate Board in proceedings under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, or by resorting to any other remedy available to it under the law.

6. For the reasons recorded above, the preliminary objection is upheld and it is held that the appeal was not filed by a proper authority and the same is dismissed. No costs.