9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant has deposited the entire amount of penalty of Rs. 17,000. This order disposes of the appeal on merit. 2. The adjudication proceedings in the present case were instituted by issue of SCN No. T-4/95/SZ/CITY of 1995, dated 26-7-1995 on the allegation that the appellant received an amount of Rs. 1,70,000 from a local person, other than the authorised dealer in foreign exchange, by order or on behalf of Ravi of Colombo, Sri Lanka, a person resident outside India. The allegations are sought to be substantiated by Mazahar dated 27-3-1995 of the search of the personal baggage of M. Taj Moulana, statements dated 27-3-1995, 28-3-1995 and 29-3-1995 of Taj Moulana under section 40 of the Act and the statement dated 27-3-1995 of the appellant under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd kept the balance of Rs. 3,30,000 for further instructions from the said Khaja; that immediately after apprehension of Taj Moulana, P.R. Kumar of Kumaran Textiles was contacted and his statement was recorded on the same day; that in his statement dated 27-3-1995 under section 39 (adjudicating authority incorrectly treat this as a statement under section 40) the appellant, inter alia, stated that one Ravi of Rasi Silks of Colombo used to make bulk purchases from Kumaran Textiles; that during one such purchases made on 27-3-1995 Ravi left a balance of Rs. 1,70,000 assuring that the same would be paid on the same evening 'by somebody' (it has been brought out by the appellant's counsel that the words 'by somebody' have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... card of Ravi. Taj Moulana in his statement of 28-3-1995 clarified that this visiting card was given to him by Ravi when he came to Chennai to purchase textiles and that Ravi's acquaintance is through purchase of textiles and travellers coming from Colombo. In his statement of 27-3-1995 Taj Moulana, inter alia, stated that on 27-3-1995 Khaja telephoned him from Colombo at 10.30 AM asking him to receive Rs. 5 lakhs from a person who would come to his shop; that he asked him to pay Rs. 1,70,000 to Kumar of Kumaran Silks near Panagal Park, near T. Nagar and that the balance of Rs. 3,30,000 should be kept with him and he would inform later as to whom the said amount is to be paid; that, accordingly, after receiving Rs. 5 lakhs at about 7 p. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Ravi, a person resident in Colombo, purchased certain goods from the appellant's shop, paid an amount of Rs. 1,71,622 and promised to pay the balance of Rs. 1,70,000 in the evening. In the circumstances, the amount received by the appellant was the amount due to him from Ravi. In view thereof, it cannot be said that he received the said amount either on behalf of or on the instructions of the said Ravi. The true position in law is that he received the said amount on his own behalf as the amount due to him, irrespective of whether the said amount was given to him by Ravi himself or by some body else on the instructions of Ravi. In other words, even if the person giving the amount is acting on the instructions of a non-resident, it d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
