9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of Section 9(1)(a) 9(1)(d) of the PER Act, 1973. This is a very old appeal of the year. 1993 pending along with application for dispensation from pre-deposit of penalty amount where presently this appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. 3. I have heard elaborate arguments of Shri Mohd. Akhtar, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Jagat Singh, Advocate for the respondent and gone through the record and relevant law and judicial pronouncement carefully. The Show Cause Notice was issued against the appellant Shah Alam along with one H. Mohd. Sibtain, Proprietor of M/s. Saudi Expo and Manpower Consultant. The appellant was a Manager of the said firm, who was charged for having made total payment to the tune of Rs 5,45,000 - to vari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of this sub section which may be granted conditionally or unconditionally by the Reserve Bank, no person in, or resident in, India shall- - (a) make any payment to or for the credit of any person resident outside India; (d) make any payment to, or for the credit of, any person by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India: 7. In the instant case, the appellant Shah Alam in his statement dated 17.1.91 and 18.1 91 explained the seized documents marked A, B, C D. While explaining these documents he admitted that he distributed Rs. 5,45.000 - to various persons in India on instructions of Niyaz Ahmed, a person resident outside India. He also admitted that he gave Rs. 1.00,000/- to Niyaz Ahmed when he visited India in lieu of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o and Manpower Consultant (M/s. Saudi) and H. Mohd. Sibtain was the Proprietor of the said firm. H. Mohd. Sibtain admitted in his statement dated 18.1.91 and 8.4.91 that he was the proprietor of M/s. Saudi Expo and Manpower Consultant who had conscious knowledge about payments made by Shah Alain and he was sharing 50-50 per cent profit from the said recruitment. 9. The appellant Shah Alain in his statement admitted that he had financed the Co. M/s. Saudi Expo and Manpower Consultant and was working in it on the basis of share of profit. Under such circumstances, the burden of proving the fact that he was merely employee of the firm and acted on the instructions of his employer. H. Mohd. Sibtain was on the appellant himself which he has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant as an employee of the firm. It appears that the transactions were carried out mostly in his personal capacity. The admissions are not made in vacuum but they are supported by concrete documentary evidence. There is no reason as to why the statement of the appellant should not be believed. It is found established that the appellant made payment Rs. 5,45,000/- on instructions of a person, resident outside India and also made payment of Rs. 1,00.000/- to Niyaz Ahmed, a person resident outside India. The charges leveled under SCN-I are thus, found proved against the appellant. 10. In the facts of this case, not only the appellant failed to explain the seized documents but, on the contrary, the facts set out above clearly prove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
