Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (9) TMI 629

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a fraudulent manner - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal has taken note of all the relevant facts. As regards the statement of B.R.Chandran implicating the appellant, the statement has been recorded on 09.11.2004 when the deponent was in custody. The order of adjudication makes it amply clear that the statement was recorded, as per the order of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin, before the Senior Intelligence Officer of the Department of Revenue Intelligence in the presence of the Superintendent of the Sub Jail, Tuticorin. The adjudicating authority has applied his mind as to whether the procedure followed for recording of the statement was acceptable, noting specifically that the Superintendent of the Sub Jail is not a Police Officer and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the course of search revealed that the importer had purchased 9 other licences through V.Sankaran, the appellant. Statements were recorded from the Appellant who, in statement dated 08.07.2004, admitted that he had received a percentage of the licence value as commission. 4. His statement revealed the involvement of one B.R.Chandran, a retired Government Employee from Vellore, who had acted as a go-between for supply of DEPB licences from M/s.Paras International and M/s.Jyoti Enterprises, entities based in Kanpur. 5. All the aforesaid entities had been brought under the scanner, and statements recorded from their representatives. The Appellant, in statement dated 08.07.2004, had traced the genealogy of the DEPB scrips and the persons/enti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs, finding the imposition of a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, harsh. It is as against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 11.02.2008 that the appellant is before us raising the following substantial questions of law: '1. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in imposing a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs after holding that the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on the Appellant was harsh. 2. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in refusing to rely on the retracted statement of Shri. Chandran. 3. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in imposing the penalty though no nexus had been established between the brokers and the goods imported by the importers. 4. Whether the absence of a finding that the Appellant had acte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... find that the Tribunal has taken note of all the relevant facts. As regards the statement of B.R.Chandran implicating the appellant, the statement has been recorded on 09.11.2004 when the deponent was in custody. The order of adjudication makes it amply clear that the statement was recorded, as per the order of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin, before the Senior Intelligence Officer of the Department of Revenue Intelligence in the presence of the Superintendent of the Sub Jail, Tuticorin. 13. The adjudicating authority has applied his mind as to whether the procedure followed for recording of the statement was acceptable, noting specifically that the Superintendent of the Sub Jail is not a Police Officer and that the presence of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t..................' 16. Paragraph 4 of the Tribunal's order which contains categoric findings of fact is relevant and extracted below: '4. After giving careful consideration to the grounds of the appeal and to the submissions made by SDR, I find that it is not in dispute that the appellant had purchased the DEPB scrips in question from Shri B.Chandran and supplied the same to M/s.DCW. Admittedly, he also supplied TRAs to the importers. Again, it is not in dispute that these DEPB scrips and TRAs were fake. According to the original statement of Shri Chandran, the appellant knew at the beginning itself that the DEPB scrips and TRAs were fake. Though Shri Chandran retracted his statement it would still be admissible in evidence in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates