9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant has made payment of the 50 per cent of the penalty amount i.e. Rs. 37,500 in compliance of the order of this Tribunal dated 10-12-2008 where presently this appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. 2. The Show-Cause Notice was issued against the appellant for having made payment of Rs. 5,50,000 to or for the credit of a person resident outside India in lieu of receipt of draft of Rs. 5,00,000 which was received by the appellant from the NRE Account of the person resident outside India. It is argued by Ld. Counsel that the payment, if any, was made by the appellant to Chartered Accountant, Ramanbhai Thakkar towards the original amount and the payment was not made to a person resident outside India where the ingredients of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d demand draft in the form of gifts from the NRE Account of Vijay Kumar Metha at a premium of 10 per cent in his presence. 5. Dhiren Vasu was examined on 22-1-1997 who admitted that during 1994, the appellant was introduced to him by Ramanbhai Thakkar and he had arranged the said draft in his favour at a premium of 10 per cent through one Babubhai. It is thus apparent from the evidence available on record that the statement of the appellant is fully corroborated by the statement of co notice, Dhiren Vasu as well as other persons, namely, Ramanbhai Thakkar, Chartered Accountant, Dhiren Vasu and circumstantial evidence of the case. The retraction was filed by the appellant but there is a bald statement not supported by documentary evidence to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has rightly been held guilty by the Adjudicating Officer. It is found established that payment of Rs. 5,50,000 was made by the appellant to or for the credit of Vijay Kumar, the person resident outside India. A request has been made by the Ld. Advocate to take a lenient view in favour of the appellant alleging that there was only one transaction alleged against the appellant. Thus having considered the fact that the transaction is not in the nature of Hawala and being temporary and very old of the year 2001, the appellant has suffered much trauma and agony on account of long pendency of this matter, I am of the view that the amount of penalty is excessive which should be reduced to the amount already deposited by the appellant. The appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
