1. The facts lie in a narrow compass & may be noticed that the appellant, by means of the present Appeal u/s 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 challenged the Impugned/Adjudication Order dated 25.05.2010, passed by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi, wherein a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- (One lakh fifty-thousand only) was imposed on the appellant Shri Sanjay Dalmia (Noticee No. 10), who was the director of the company, M/s Multitech International Ltd. (Noticee No. 1), for contravention of the provisions of Section 8(3) r/w 8(4) in terms of Section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. It is further emphasized that first order of the Adjudicating Authority was passed in this matter on 11.12.2003 by way of imposing a penalty of Rs. 65,000/- against the appellant. The Tribunal vide its order, dated 31.09.2007 quashed the aforesaid order of the Adjudicating Authority & remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority vide its order, dated 25.05.2010 passed the order again holding the appellant guilty and enhanced the penalty amount from Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty five thousand only) to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only). An amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) was deposited by the appellant as pre-deposit of penalty amount in compliance of the orders of the Tribunal, dated 27.08.2010.

2.As per Adjudicating Authority Order No. SDE/BK/111/04/2010 dated 25.05.2010, a penalty of Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs only) was imposed on M/s Multitech International Ltd. Company (Noticee No. 1), U/S 50 of FERA, 1973 & a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) on each of the (Noticee Nos.9, 10, 11, 25, 26, 27, 28 & 29) was imposed U/S 50 of FERA,1973. However, the charges were dropped by the Adjudicating Authority against (Noticee Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 24). It is also alleged that the appellant was the director of the said company during the relevant period and the company its executive directors and directors were held guilty for the contravention of the provisions of Sec.8(3) & 8 (4) of the FER Act to the extent of US Dollar 54,750/- for not producing evidence for the import of goods against the remittance of the said amount. However, the charge in respect of UK Pound 95,68,990/- was dropped.

3. It is also added that the penalty was wrongly imposed against the appellant in terms of Sec. 68 of the FER Act, 1973, as the appellant was not aware of the transaction in question & he was not looking after the day-to-day affairs of the company.

Relief claimed by the appellant is to set-aside the impugned Order No. SDE/BK/111/04/2010 dated 25.05.2010, passed by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi and to pass such order as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit.

4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant reiterated all the points mentioned in the Appeal at the time of arguments. He submitted that penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) was wrongly imposed on the appellant in terms of Sec. 68 of the FER Act, because the appellant was not aware of the transaction in question as the appellant was not looking after the day-to-day affairs of the company. However, the appellant had remained as director of the company for 3 months only i.e. upto 20.06.1987 from the date of transaction in question i.e. in April 1987. Only the executive directors are responsible for the day-to-day business of the company, including the transaction in question. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the SCN was issued after an inordinate delay of 15 years i.e in March 2002 from the initiation of the enquiry, whereas the transaction was executed in 1987.

5. Ld. Counsel further stressed that the case of the present appellant Shri Sanjay Dalmia (Noticee No. 10) is at par with other Directors i.e. Shri H.S. Rustagi (Noticee No. 13), Shri Jaihari Dalmia (Noticee No. 11) & Shri