9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. In the present appeal this Tribunal is only concerned with the appeal filed by Mr. Sachin A. Mehta, Noticee No. 2. 4. The allegation against the appellant and Shri Thlabik are mentioned in Para 4 to 8 of the Show Cause notice dated 12th March, 2009 as under: I. On perusal of the abovementioned complaint dated 19.12.2008 and after taking into consideration the facts and results of investigations as contained in the said complaint, a prima-facie case of contravention of the provisions of Section 3(a) of the FEMA is made out against S/Shri Thlabik and Sachin A. Mehta as detailed below: (a) By dealing in foreign exchange totaling to US $ 67,18,100/- between the period 01.6.2006 to 26.10.2006 without the general or special permission of Reserve Bank in the aforesaid manner, the said Shri Thlabik appears to have contravened the provisions of Sub-section (a) of Section 3 of FEMA; (b) By dealing in foreign exchange equivalent to Rs. 35 Lakhs during the period from June 2006 to September, 2006 without the general or special permission of Reserve Bank in the aforesaid manner, the said Shri Sachin A. Mehta. II. S/Shri Thlabik and Sachin A. Mehta are required to show cause in wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchasing gems and jewelry for giving presentation on occasions in their festivals. However, subsequently they denied to have any transactions with the appellant. Cross examination was requested for, which was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority, but nobody appear for cross-examination. Their statements could not be testified through cross-examination and hence those statements lost its evidentiary value more particularly when there is no violation on the part of the petitioner that he was involved in any manner for unauthorized dealing of foreign exchange. The order has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority in gross violation of principle of natural justice. The original note book was requested for inspection, which could not be produced at the time of adjudication. The cross - examination was allowed, but none appeared for cross-examination. The proceeding initiated based on conclusive show cause notice, in-complete investigation and the proceeding is not maintainable. Adjudicating authority did not make any finding on that. The petitioner also referred some decision in support of his contentions in the reply to the show cause notice, but nothing was discussed in the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alia come to the following consequences:- 9.5.13 Now coming to Noticee No. 2 i.e. Sh. Sachin A. Mehta, his role/transaction with Noticee No. 1 i.e. Sh. Thlabik has been discussed in foregoing paras and it emerges as under:- a) Sh. Thalbik, Noticee NO. 1 in his statement dated 09.02.207 had named notice No. 2 i.e. Sachin as a man of said Raj (Who delivered the said seized dollars to Sh. Thlabik Noticee No. 1) and that he (Noticee No.1) had purchased dollars from Sh. Sachin based in Kolkata. He had mentioned of Shri Sachin alongwith Sh Samir who turned-out to be brother of Shri Sachin. b) Sh. Sachin A. Mehta, Noticee No. 2 in his statement dated 07.05.2007 admitted to have received total amount of Rs. 35 lakhs in cash from Noticee No. 1 of Aizawal during the period June to September 2006 and those transactions were reflected at pages no. 2, 46 & 30 of the said seized Note Book as explained by him (Noticee No. 2) c) Shri Sachin A. Mehta, Noticee No. 2 vide his letter dated 24.07.2008 had himself named Sh. Biaka & Ms Thuampuii as persons who had sent money to him through Sh Thlabik, Noticee NO. 1 for business transaction. Both Sh. Biaka And rs. Thuampuii (Not noticees) in their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upee Thirty five lakhs only) from Shri Thlabik (the amount recovered at the time of search of the premises). His case is that it was the money representing the payment was owned by two purchasers of Jewellery at Mizoram. It is not in dispute that the department has allowed him to cross examination of main witness (accused) Shri Thlabik, however, the said witness was not produced for the said purpose. When verified, it was informed that he was absconding, therefore, could not be produced for cross-examination. It is argued on behalf of appellant that under said circumstances, Mr. Thlabik‟s statement cannot be relied upon. In the absence of evidence, it cannot be inferred against him about dealing in illegal trade of foreign exchange. Private Note-Book was explained by Mr. Thlabik, however, he did not appear for cross-examination. The appellant has denied the contents of note-book and entries made therein against him. 9. Recovering Indian Currency in case of Rs. 35 Lac. from the appellant cannot be inferred that he had been dealing with illegal trade of foreign exchange The cross-examination of Mr. Biaka and Thuampii was not allowed who had allegedly sent the money to appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
