9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of penalties. The appellant further stated in his Stay Petition that he would suffer great financial hardship if he is forced to pay penalty amount pending hearing of the Appeal and craved leave to refer to and rely upon the relevant documents to bring his financial position including his Income-tax return and wealth-tax return. When Shri Kumar, the Appellant s counsel, was asked to show how pre-deposit would cause undue hardship, he submitted that the case is old one and on the facts of it, he is prepared to argue the case straightaway on merits with a view to have the appeal finally disposed of. I have given my careful consideration to this plea of the Appellant s counsel and I consider it expedient to dispense with the penalty and tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the counts and imposed the penalty of Rs. 9,000 for contravening the provisions of section 9(1)(b) and penalty of Rs. 45,000 for contravening the provisions of section 14 of the Act. 4. Shri Kumar, the learned counsel of the Appellant submitted that Rs. 30,000 was taken by the Appellant for the purpose of having costumes to be used in the programme by the Appellant and was not by way of remuneration. Shri Kumar thus contended that at best there could be a technical breach of section 9(1)(b) and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant deserves a lenient view in the matter. As regards show-cause notice No. 2, Shri Kumar contended that no contravention has been proved as there is no evidence whatsoever of holding or ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is account. Shri Kumar was asked to state if he has furnished any confirmation letter either of Dhimant Doshi or Shri Krishan Lalwani to the effect that the Appellant was not paid any money in USA by any one of them for participation in the programmes. Shri Kumar sought 10 days time to ascertain the correct position in this regard and in case there has been any such confirmation letter, he would be filing the same. In his written submission dated 31-7-2001, Shri Kumar has stated that the Appellant does not have copies of a confirmatory letter referred to on page 4 of his statement at this point of time. 6. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel of the Appellant as well as the material available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case. Para 3 of the show-cause notice states that Shri G.K. Asrani received the balance amount of Rs. 1,50,000 in USA from Shri Krishan Lalwani in equivalent American Dollars. Similarly at page 4 of the impugned order, the learned adjudicating authority has observed : I am of the opinion that the statement of Shri Doshi are reliable about the payment of Rs. 1.5 lacs by Shri Lalwani to the party in USA. So I reject the contention of the party that he did not receive any payment in USA. Thus, there is no force in Shri Kumar s contention that there is no averment in the show-cause notice or the impugned order that Shri Asrani owned or held foreign exchange at the relevant point of time. Shri Kumar has not stated as to how the judgment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r having performed in the six programmes, cannot say that he did not own or hold foreign exchange for the purpose of section 14 of the Act. 8. The Appellant has denied having received any amount in USA from Shri Lalwani. The main thrust of this argument has been that there is no evidence of such payment. It will be relevant to note in this regard that Shri Doshi has stated in his statement that the Appellant was engaged for participating in six programmes in USA, details of which was given by him in his statement. He further stated that for each programme, the Appellant was to be paid at the rate of Rs. 30,000. A sum of Rs. 30,000 was paid by Shri Doshi to the Appellant as a part payment, which has been admitted by the Appellant. The Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Syed Nuri Shah v. Director of Enforcement [1986] CLJ 677 where the Appellant received a registered cover containing draft and was asked by the Enforcement Directorate to disclose the source from which he received the draft. He disclaimed the cover which was seized. The sender of the registered cover stated that amount sent emanated from a foreign source though did not remember from what source received or to whom sent. In view of the fact, that the registered cover was admittedly addressed to the Appellant and the evidence of the sender to the effect that the source was a foreign source, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the finding of contravention under section 9(1)(b) and (d) was established based on evidence. Accordingly, I fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
