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

2005 (11) TMI 537

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ovision of section 9(1)(d) of the Act for the reason of receiving total payment of Rs. 27,18,000 and also making payment totalling to Rs. 12,67,000 from/to various persons in India by order or on behalf of a person resident outside India. 2. A Show Cause Notice No. T-4/22/B/91 dated 5-4-1991 was issued to the appellant seeking his show cause why the adjudication proceeding should not be held against him for receiving the total payment of Rs. 27,18,000 from a person resident in India and also making payment totalling to Rs. 12, 67,000 to persons in India by order or on behalf of his friend Shri Mohammed Chhabu of U.K. resident outside India without any general or special permission from the RBI. The following documents were relied upon in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri T.K. Gadoo, DLA represented the respondent. At the close of hearing both sides were given liberty to file their respective written submissions, if any, within 10 days. Since no such written submissions have come forward this appeal is being disposed of without further waiting. 6. Shri R.C. Gajjar, advocate for the appellant contends that the appellant had not received any amount during the relevant period from any person and has never made any such payment totalling to Rs. 12,67,000 to any person as alleged. It is submitted that appellant does not know any person named Mohammed Chhabu of U.K. and he has not met and seen any such person. It is stated that officers of the Enforcement Directorate apprehended the appellant from his residen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellant was recorded under section 40 of the Act and was amply corroborated. It is submitted that the documents marked C-9 , D-2 , D-16 and K-4 recovered from residential premises of Ms. Hawabibi Morea are fully corroborated with the page 2 of the document recovered and seized from the residence of the appellant on 15-4-1990. Shri T.K. Gadoo stated that documents marked C-9 , D-16 and K-4 recovered from the residential premises of Ms. Hawabibi Morea contains the signatures of the appellants. The appellant identified his elder brother s signature on the document D-2 . The amount mentioned in the said documents marked C-9 , D-2 , D-16 and K-4 are sufficiently corroborated with the amount mentioned at page 2 of the seized documents recover .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Act on 18-4-1990. The learned adjudicating authority has observed in paragraph (vi) at page 6 of the adjudication order that appellant in his reply dated 28-6-2001 clearly admitted his signatures on the documents seized from the premises of Ms. Hawabibi Morea. 11. As regards the right of cross examinations of the witnesses whom the appellant desired it is seen that summons were issued but ultimately none of the witnesses could be available for which the adjudicating authority cannot be blamed. 12. As regards the referred case laws on the question of admissibility of the seized documents the observations of the Court/Tribunal is to be looked into with factual matrix described therein keeping in mind the flexibility. In this regard Apex Cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to say that the core of all the decisions of this Court is to the effect that the voluntary nature of any statement made either before the Customs authorities or the officers of Enforcement under the relevant provisions of the respective Act is a sine qua non to act on it for any purpose and if the statement appears to have been obtained by any inducement, threat, coercion or by any improper means that statement must be rejected brevi manu. At the same time, it is to be noted that merely because a statement is retracted, it cannot be recorded as involuntary or unlawfully obtained. It is only for the maker of the statement who alleges inducement, threat, promise etc. to establish that such improper means has been adopted. However, even if t .....

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