9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitted that he brought the currency tied to his waist to the airport by his personal Fiat car - Held that: - Tribunal has dealt with the real controversy and rightly decided the appeal in correct perspective, vide which, a penalty of Rs.10 lacs imposed on the petitioner was reduced to Rs.5 lacs. Thus, the contrary argument, "stricto sensu" deserves to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. - Adjudicating Authority provided adequate opportunities to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and the Tribunal has rightly dismissed his appeal in the obtaining circumstances of the case. - 3 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 12-5-2010 - CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncy to be carried to Bahrain for Kuttie. He also gave him one extra cloth belt to be used in case of any damage to his belt. The additional belt was also recovered from his baggage and seized. He also admitted that he brought the currency tied to his waist to the airport by his personal Fiat car bearing registration No. BLN 4518. Accordingly, the vehicle alongwith its documents was also taken into possession and seized under the Act. Petitioner was confronted with copy of passport and photograph of one Kamlesh Vyas, then he admitted that he knew him for the last two years. He was a jeweller by profession and that he had been making jewellery for him (petitioner) and his family. The petitioner also admitted that he is well aware that carryin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tnesses. He has also given a long list of 14 witnesses to be cross-examined by him. 6. The Adjudicating Authority noticed, in regard to the case of petitioner, as under:- "Shri Raichandani, Advocate, on behalf of Captain Shergil filed an interim reply to the Show cause notice and requested cross examination of various witnesses and would thereafter file final reply. Various dates were given for personal hearing and various witnesses had been examined by the Advocate but final reply has not been received from Shergil or his Advocate. Personal hearing memos were sent to Mr.Shergil on 28.9.2000, 23.10.00, 10.11.00, 11.2.00 at his given address which were returned by postal authorities with remarks "Not found" Thereafter, neither he nor his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a petition under section 130A of the Act in this Court, for directing the Appellate Tribunal to refer the question of law arising from the impugned order (Annexure P14). In the wake of his petition bearing CEC No.9 of 2003, this Court directed the Appellate Tribunal to refer the indicated question framed for opinion of this Court, vide order dated 10.1.2006. 10. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the Appellate Tribunal referred the following question of law for adjudication by this Court, vide order dated 24.3.2006:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal stands vitiated on the ground that it has failed to go into the question of adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee?" Tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confiscation or imposition of penalty mentioned therein; (c) a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter: Provided that the notice referred to in clause (a) and the representation referred to in clause (b) may at the request of the person concerned be oral." 15. Meaning thereby, a co-joint reading of these provisions would reveal that the authorities were only required to give a notice, opportunity of making representation in writing and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 16. In the instant case, it is not a matter of dispute that having completed all the codal formalities, a show cause notice (Annexure P7), containing the complete details of the entire case, was issued to the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, his couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g, but in vain. Finding no alternative, the Adjudicating Authority confiscated the currency and articles and imposed the penalty, vide a well reasoned order (Annexure P11). Therefore, it cannot possibly be saith that no adequate opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner in this relevant direction. 19. Moreover, even the Tribunal has dealt with the real controversy and rightly decided the appeal in correct perspective, vide which, a penalty of Rs.10 lacs imposed on the petitioner was reduced to Rs.5 lacs. Thus, the contrary argument, "stricto sensu" deserves to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 20. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, it is held that the Adjudicating Authority provided adequa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
