9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3296 from one Samad, a resident outside India. This is a very old appeal of the year 1985 where a report has been submitted by the DLA about service of notice of hearing on the appellant through affixation under rule 14(c) of Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 2000. The application for dispensation from pre-deposit of penalty was decided by this Tribunal vide its order dated 20-10-1987 against which a writ petition was filed by the appellant in High Court of Madras where the order was set aside by order dated 20-2-1997 directing this Tribunal to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. Despite sufficient service of notice appellant is neither present nor represented by anyone to contest his appeal which is very old appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertension. The letter dated 1-10-1984 of the appellant was not taken into consideration by the adjudicating authority whereby this statement was retracted. The appellant never agreed to pay any amount as stated in the impugned order about payment of Rs. 1,000 per candidate to Mohd. Idris. The appellant merely communicated the demand of Mr. Mohd. Idris of M/s. Qurram Contractors, Muscat to sub-agents, namely Syed Nasurulla and Mohd. Mushtaq. The payments were made by the agents themselves to Mohd. Idris on 29-11-1982 and not at the instance of the appellant. Recruitment of 233 candidates was made by these persons. P.K. Zaffar was not foreign national but was a resident of India and any payment to him did not contravene the provisions of FER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their company had decided to freeze employment and so recruitment was stayed hence the appellant filed a suit C.S. No. 113/83 against M/s. Qurram Contractors in Madras High Court where no explanation has come from the appellant about the filing of the said suit in the High Court. 6. However, this fact is worth noticing here that the appellant was sole proprietor of firm Maqsood Associates who started it for recruiting workers. He himself entered into a contract with Mohd. Idris to recruit 233 workers and recruited them through his age as where seized file A related to the recruitment of said workers. His agent Dr. E. Syed Nasurullah confirmed this fact in his statement that payment of Rs. 1,70,000 was made by him and Rs. 80,000 by Mr. Musht ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed by agent of the appellant Shri Syed Nasurullah in his statement, under such circumstances the appellant was under an obligation to explain the recovery of letter and its confirmation by his own agent which he has failed to explain. Thus there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the truthfulness of the charge that the appellant acquired Saudi Riyals 3296 from Samad abroad particularly when Samad was brother of Nasurulla. 8. Having considered facts, evidence and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the respondent has fully proved the charges against the appellant. The retracted confessional statements of the appellant may constitute the basis of conviction provided they are corroborated in material particulars part a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
