9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bundle and requested the Registry to arrange to furnish the documents mentioned therein. The counsel has further expressed his inability to furnish requisite proof of deposit of Rs. 1,000 in terms of directions issued by this Tribunal vide interim order dated 12-4-1991 while dispensing with the pre-deposit of entire amount of penalty. 2. The respondent have confirmed that a sum of Rs. 1,000 has been deposited by the appellant in terms of this Tribunal s order dated 12-4-1991. 3. In view of the fact that the notice of hearing has already been served upon on the counsel of the appellant as well as the small amount of penalty informed in the case being Rs. 2,200 and the case being a very old one, I do not consider it just and proper to adjourn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of section 9(1)(d). Feeling aggrieved of this, the appellant has come in appeal against the Order No. AD/MAS/92-93/86(GS) dated 18-7-1986 where under the said penalties were imposed on the appellant. 5. In the memorandum of appeal, the appellant has, inter alia, pleaded that the Adjudicating Officer erred in holding that the appellant had admitted in his statement dated 16-11-1985 that he received a sum of Rs. 10,000 from a local person. Since it is contrary to admitted fact, the appellant said that the amount was received by him by draft from his native place, the Asstt. Director failed to note that there was no connection whatsoever between the alleged receipt of the sum of Rs. 10,000 at Eruwadi and alleged instructions from his son-in- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(b) is concerned, the learned Adjudicating Officer has solely relied on the statement of the appellant. However, the same was denied by the appellant in his reply to the show cause notice when he stated that he received this payment by draft from his native place and was not on the instruction of his son-in-law residing outside India. The learned Adjudicating Officer held that the fact that the amount was received by draft from someone in India does not absolve the party of the charge against him under section 9(1)(b). With due respect to the learned adjudicating authority I am not inclined to agree with this finding. The contention of the appellant was that he received this money by draft from his native place and the same was received fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
