ORDER : Ashutosh Shastri, J. 1. With the request and consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, these first appeals are taken up for final disposal. Since the issue involved in these three appeals are identical and as such these appeals are taken up conjointly by treating the First Appeal No.1258 of 2018 as a lead matter and the facts are taken from it for the sake of convenience. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Paritosh R. Gupta for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Siddharth Dave appearing for Mr. Devang Vyas, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondent authorities. 3. By way of this First Appeal under Section 35 of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the orders dated 09.11.2017 and 29.01.2016 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Foreign Exchange Management Act in Appeal No.FPA-FE-03/AHD/2013. 4. The background of the present first appeal is that the appellant is a merchant exporter. At the relevant point of time, somewhere in the year-2001 was holding the status of star trading house and was engaged in the business of import and export of various products including fabrics and readymade garments to and from several European countries, Asian countries and United States of America. In the said course of the business, the representative of the appellant came in contact with one supplier of readymade garments in United Arab Emirates namely Prestige General Trading, which was essentially dealing in the readymade garments made in China, Vietnam, Thailand etc. and in furtherance of the said deliberation with the company, the appellant placed an order on the same supplier based in United Arab Emirates after making necessary inquiry of the said supplier and established letter of credit in favour of the supplier through its banker State of Saurashtra in October-2001. 4.1 The said supplier shipped a container load of ladies nightwear containing 90864 pieces under the invoice dated 13.10.2001 and with regard to the said goods, the bill of entry for warehousing along with the shipping bills for export on 02.11.2001 with a declaration on the bill of entries itself that goods were meant for export in terms of Paragraph 11.7 of EXIM Policy 1994-2002 read with Section 69 of Customs Act, 1962. The said bill of entry filed by the appellant was also assessed and forwarded to the docks for examination. The said bill of entry filed by the appellant was also assessed and forwarded to the docks for examination. However, the customs docks forwarded the documents to SIIB with certain remarks and the said goods imported claimed to have been examined on 22.11.2001, for which, the appellant was not aware and the investigation was carried out by the Customs Department leading to the issuance of show cause notice, which came to be adjudicated vide order dated 13.12.2005. 4.2 It is the case of the appellant that the appeal challenging the said order dated 13.12.2005 came to be filed before the appellant in Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was decided vide final order No.41334 of 2017 on 26.07.2017 and the same came to be decided against the appellant. The appellant, then, submitted miscellaneous civil application for review of the aforesaid order, stated to be pending before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. 4.3 It is the case of the appellant that the Enforcement Director without making proper investigation in this regard lodged a complaint on 21.06.2011 under Section 16(3) of the Act, which was lodged, wherein the facts were based on the aforesaid order of the Commissioner of Customs, dated 30.12.2005 and a reference was made under Section 10(6) of the Act as well as other relevant provisions. The said complaint alleging that the appellant had contravened the provisions of Section 10(6) of the Act read with Regulation 6(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (Realization, Repatriation and Surrender of Foreign Exchange Regulation, 2000) read with Section 42 of the Act. It was stated, thereafter, that the appellant liable to be proceeded against the said contravention in terms of Section 13 of the Act. As a result of which, a show cause notice was issued against the appellant on 23.06.2011 calling upon, as to why adjudication proceedings as contemplated under Section 13 of the Act should not be held for contravention of provisions of the Act and as to why direction, under Section 13(2) of the Act should not be issued to bring back excess amount of foreign exchange on account of over invoice imports. 4.4 It is further the case of the appellant that personal hearing before adjudicating authority was given on 18.08.2011, in which, it was conveyed that dispute relates to imports regarding which an appeal is pending before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dealing with the matters of imports, whereby the proceedings in question would be kept in abeyance till the appeal before the Tribunal came to be disposed of. Subsequently, hearing of the aforesaid show cause notice dated 23.06.2011 was once again fixed on 04.10.2012, whereafter, the written submissions along with the certificates from Chartered Accountant and the Company Secretary were filed on 31.10.2012. The adjudicating authority later on passed an order in original on 30.11.2012, without considering the factual and legal position and by the said order, a penalty of Rs.1 Crore came to be imposed on the appellant under Section 13 of the Act read with Section 42 of the Act. 4.5 The appellant, feeling aggrieved by the said order, filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, Foreign Exchange Management Act under Section 19(1) of the Act. Along with the said appeal, the appellant also preferred an application for dispensing with the requirement of penalty as provided for in the second proviso to Section 19(1) of the Act. The written submission also later on came to be filed on 13.10.2015 by the appellant. The proceedings were heard by the Authority and vide order dated 29.01.2016, an order came to be passed directing the appellant to deposit an amount of 10% of penalty as well as furnishing reliable security of 40% of the amount of penalty. According to the appellant, while passing said order, the Tribunal did not consider the aspect of undue hardship, which was specifically pleaded along with the supportive documents and as such without considering the said material and the contention, the order came to be passed. According to the appellant, while passing said order, the Tribunal did not consider the aspect of undue hardship, which was specifically pleaded along with the supportive documents and as such without considering the said material and the contention, the order came to be passed. It has been stated by the appellant that the balance sheet of the relevant period was also submitted along with the separate affidavit on 05.04.2013, but the authority while passing the order has not taken into consideration as a result of which, the appellant preferred an application for seeking modification of the order dated 29.01.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal along with it a further income tax returns for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 also came to be attached along the provisional attachment order even date as described in the memo. The case of the appellant that to show the undue hardship, ample evidence was brought before the Authority, but the Authority has not taken into consideration in its true perspective and passed an order, which is impugned in the present first appeal. 5. The appellant has specifically raised the contentions with regard to the said non consideration of the material produced before the authority as ground Nos.(D) and (E) mentioned in the appeal memo. A question of law while preferring this appeal under Section 35 has also been formulated in Paragraph No.4, which reads as under : “(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, order dated 29.01.2016 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Foreign Exchange Management Act, without considering the documents pertaining to its financial condition filed by the appellant as well as affidavit dated 5.4.2013 filed by the appellant, imposing the conditions for entertainment of Appeal No.FPA-FE-03/AHD/2013 was just and proper? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Appellate Tribunal, Foreign Exchange Management Act, erred in imposing conditions for entertainment of Appeal No.FPA-FE-03/AHD/2013 vide order dated 29.01.2016? 6. The present first appeal came to be entertained by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 28.06.2018 precisely on the submissions that the Authority failed to examine the ground of extreme financial hardships raised by the appellant and it is in this background, the present first appeal has come up for consideration finally before this Court. 7. Learned advocate Mr. The present first appeal came to be entertained by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 28.06.2018 precisely on the submissions that the Authority failed to examine the ground of extreme financial hardships raised by the appellant and it is in this background, the present first appeal has come up for consideration finally before this Court. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Paritosh R. Gupta appearing for the appellant has submitted that the ground with regard to undue hardship has already been specifically raised and pleaded not only in the application but also while tendering written submissions and to substantiate this contention, the learned advocate Mr. Gupta has made a reference to the said contention, which are reflecting in an application attached to the appeal compilation at page No.85 onwards. In the said application, which was filed for the purpose of seeking waiver of pre-deposit, a contention has been raised in paragraph No.4 as well as paragraph No.6. Not only that the learned advocate Mr. Gupta has also pointed out from the written submissions, which are attached to the appeal compilation on Page No.19 and has pointed out that financial hardship contention has been specifically taken as a part of submission at Submission No.(K) reflecting on Page No.96 and as such has submitted that these contentions, which have been specifically pointed out to the authority have not been even dealt with and the bare perusal of the order would clearly indicate that the said material, which has been produced has not been even touched by the authority as such has submitted the decision making process is suffering from the vice of non application of mind. It has been further contended that non consideration of the material, which has been produced is also a good ground for remanding the matter back for fresh consideration and for that purpose, the learned advocate has relied upon two decisions reported in the case of Himatsu Bimet Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2014 (306) E.L.T. 84 (Guj) and the decision delivered by the High Court of Judicature of Chattisgarsh in case of Kailash Agrawal vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. & Customs reported in 2015 (322) ELT.276 (Chattisgardh) and by referring this a contention is reiterated that non-consideration of this material is sufficient enough to direct the authority to reconsider the issue about pre-deposit and as such has requested to pass the suitable order in the interest of justice. 8. At against this the learned advocate Mr. Siddharth Dave appearing for Mr. Devang Vyas, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the contesting respondent authority, has vehemently contended that this is financial evasion by the appellant and as such considering the object of the Act even if the Authority has not considered the material, the discretion cannot be considered to be vitiated since the object of the act has been taken into consideration by the Authority, while passing the order. Learned advocate Mr. Dave has submitted that even otherwise the discretion is vested in the authority has been properly exercised by considering the overall material on record and the pre-deposit condition has been rather fixed at a very reasonable rate, and therefore, the Hon’ble Court may not interfere with the order. No further submissions have been made by learned advocate Mr. Dave appearing for the respondent authority. 9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, we are of the opinion that the appellant has specifically raised this plea of hardship as is clearly visible in paragraph No.4 of the application filed under sub-Section (1) of Section 19 of the Foreign Management Act, 1999, reflecting on Page No.85. We may quote hereunder the said assertion made by the appellant in the said paragraph : “(4) Applicants also plead financial hardship as for the last many years and particularly from 2007-08 they continued to suffer heavy reverses for various reasons and infact not only the entire capital of the Applicants, even the loans so obtained from various Financial Institution has been wiped out due to bad debts from the overseas buyers to whom they had exported various goods and they have not been able to recover any substantial amount inspite of their best efforts due to severe economic recession/Economic break-down in Europe which has also very badly affected the business even in other countries including India as well. (6) Applicants also say and submit that their financial hardship also stands revealed from the returns of Income Tax for the last 3 years. Copies of which are annexed hereto.” 10. In addition to this, written submissions, which have been filed before the authority, this plea of financial hardship has been specifically taken as a part of sufficient and the said paragraph thus reads as under : (K) Financial Hardship:- Without prejudice to the above submission, all the appellants are pleading financial hardship. All the appellants had filed the Affidavits in this Hon’ble Tribunal with respect to plea of financial hardship. The appellant No.1 has also enclosed the Balance Sheet along with ITR returns which are annexed with the Appeal paper book (pages 280 to 339). The Appellant No.1 through his MD in his affidavit dated 05.04.2013 before this Hon’ble Tribunal has deposed that the company has hardly been able to conduct any business for the last many years and absolutely has not been able to do any business for the F.Y. 2012-13. It was further deposed that financial position of the company is such that is not able to pay Salary of even a Peon, therefore the company has done away with the services of all its employees including office peon. It was further deposed that the company is suffering from acute financial hardship.” 11. In the background of aforesaid circumstances, we may also further considered that a question of law, which has been framed in Paragraph No.4 is also to the effect that the authority has exercised the discretion without considering the documents pertaining to financial conditions as submitted by way of an affidavit. The said question of law is also clearly reflecting in Paragraph No.4 on Page No.J of the appeal memo. 12. In view of the aforesaid situation, which is prevailing on record, a perusal of the first order passed by the co-ordinate Bench while issuing notice is also to the effect that authority has failed to examine the ground of extreme financial hardship raised by the appellant. We may deem it proper to quote the said order hereunder : “1. Counsel for the appellant submitted that while imposing condition of pre-deposit, the authority failed to examine the ground of extreme financial hardships raised by the appellant. 2. NOTICE, returnable on 26.07.2018.” 13. We may deem it proper to quote the said order hereunder : “1. Counsel for the appellant submitted that while imposing condition of pre-deposit, the authority failed to examine the ground of extreme financial hardships raised by the appellant. 2. NOTICE, returnable on 26.07.2018.” 13. As such from the overall material on record, a perusal of the impugned order clearly reflects that this financial crunch, which has been projected before the authority along with submission and relevant material appears to have not been dealt in its true perspective and as such, we are of the considered opinion that the discretion exercised by the authority appears to be perverse. 14. Time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court has propounded that while exercising due discretion, the relevant submission and the contention raised deserves to be dealt and that having not been reflecting in the impugned order, we are of the opinion that orders suffers from the voice of non application of mind and as a consequent thereof, we are also of the opinion that the said issue with regard to the request for waiver of pre-deposit deserves to be reconsidered by the authority in the context of material, which has been placed before it. 15. Since we have considered the proposition of Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions reported in 2019 (5) SCC 149 , 2019 (5) SCC 744 and 2019 (4) SCC 357 , we deem it proper to quote hereunder the relevant observations: 15.1 In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Rashtradoot (Huf) reported in 2019 (5) SCC 149 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under : “13. This Court has consistently laid emphasis that every order/judgment, which decides the lis between the parties, must contain the reason(s)/ground(s) for arriving at a particular conclusion. Indeed, what is decisive for deciding the case is not the conclusion alone but the reason(s)/ground(s) assigned in support of such conclusion, which results in reaching to such conclusion. 14. In order to decide as to whether the impugned order is legally sustainable or not, the Appellate Court is entitled to know as to what impelled the Court below to pass such order in favour of one party and against the aggrieved party. We find that this requirement is missing in the impugned order of this case and hence the interference is called for. We find that this requirement is missing in the impugned order of this case and hence the interference is called for. (See State of Maharashtra vs. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, Jawahar Lal Singh vs. Naresh Singh, State of U.P. vs. Battan, Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar and State of Orissa vs. Dhaniram Luhar.)” 15.2 In the case of Kushuma Devi vs. Sheopati Devi (Dead) and Others reported in 2019 (5) SCC 744 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under : “7. The need to remand the case to the High Court has occasioned because from the perusal of the impugned order dated 27.07.2012 quoted above, we find that it is an unreasoned order. In other words, the High Court neither discussed the issues arising in the case, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged by the parties and nor assigned any reason as to why it has dismissed the writ petition.” 15.3 In the case of State of Orissa and Others vs. Chandra Nandi reported in 2019 (4) SCC 357 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under : “9. The need to remand the case to the High Court has occasioned because from the perusal of the impugned order, we find that it is an unreasoned order. In other words, the High Court neither discussed the issues arising in the case, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged by the parties and nor assigned any reason as to why it has allowed the writ petition and granted the reliefs to the writ petitioner which were declined by the Tribunal. 10. This Court has consistently laid down that every judicial or/and quasi-judicial order passed by the Court/ Tribunal/Authority concerned, which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion. The parties to the lis and so also the appellate/revisionary Court while examining the correctness of the order are entitled to know as to on which basis, a particular conclusion is arrived at in the order. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and the findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as to what led the Court/Tribunal/Authority for reaching to such conclusion. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and the findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as to what led the Court/Tribunal/Authority for reaching to such conclusion. (See State of Maharashtra vs. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, Jawahar Lal Singh vs. Naresh Singh, State of U.P. vs. Battan, Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar and State of Orissa vs. Dhaniram Luhar.)” 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh, out of which this appeal arises, for its disposal in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above.” 16. In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of overall the material placed before us, we are of the considered opinion that Authority while passing the impugned order has not taken into consideration the financial hardship, which has been projected before it. Hence, the request of the appellant deserves to be reconsidered in light of the aforesaid observations. 17. Accordingly, we pass following order : (A) The present first appeals stand allowed. The impugned orders dated 09.11.2017 and 29.01.2016 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Foreign Exchange Management Act in Appeal No.FPA-FE-03/AHD/2013 are hereby quashed and set aside and as a consequent thereof, the Appellate Tribunal, Foreign Exchange Management Act, is directed to reconsider and re-examine the issue with regard to the waiver of pre-deposit afresh and pass the suitable order in the interest of justice.” (B) It is made clear that we are not expressing any opinion on merits. It is independently left it open for the authority to pass a fresh order in the interest of justice after due compliance of principles of nature justice in the light of material, which has been placed before it. We are also making it clear that disposal of these appeals would not have any bearing upon any other pending proceedings, which are initiated by the Authority against the appellant. (C) Since the issue with regard to financial hardship is agitated for quite some time, we deem it proper to direct the authorities to reconsider and take a fresh decision strictly in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. (C) Since the issue with regard to financial hardship is agitated for quite some time, we deem it proper to direct the authorities to reconsider and take a fresh decision strictly in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. (D) With such observations and directions, present appeals stand allowed to the aforesaid extent. Since the main appeals are disposed of in aforesaid terms, connected civil applications are consigned to record and disposed of accordingly.