9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (SCNs) I, II in and the amounts of penalty imposed therefor are Rs. 30,000, Rs. 1,500 and Rs. 500 respectively, aggregating to Rs. 32,000. An amount of Rs. 3,50,000 seized from the business premises of the appellant has been ordered to be confiscated. 2. After considering the dispensation application filed along with the memorandum of appeal and hearing the parties, I waived the requirement of pre-deposit and proceeded to hear the appeal on merits. This final order disposes of the appeal. 3. Shri Madhu Patel, the learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that there is absolutely no evidence, except the alleged admission made by the appellant in his statement under section 40 of the Act, to substantiate the allegation of having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant would make payment, as alleged, to the two persons Gangaram and Paketwala from his own cash instead of making payment from out of the said amount of Rs. 3,50,000 allegedly received from Abdullah for such payments. As regards the alleged payment of Rs. 9,000 to Azimulla, he stated that the allegation of this payment is based on a draft sent in the year 1987 by the employee of the appellant. Obviously, this payment is not made as per instructions of Abdullah who is stated to have telephoned the appellant on 15-4-1989. Shri Patel submitted that the department did not produce any evidence to prove that the amount of Rs. 3,50,000 seized from the business premises of the appellant had been sent by Abdullah and received by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he statement made by Shri Patel. In my opinion, there is adequate force in the submissions made by Shri Patel in regard to the seized Indian currency of Rs. 3,50,000. I have gone through the statement of the appellant purported to have been recorded under section 40. It is difficult for me to accept the statement to be true as regards the material particulars to sustain the charge of section 9(1)(b). The Investigating Officer has not interrogated the appellant about Mubarak Hussain, who is said to have delivered the amount of Rs. 3,50,000 to the appellant. He did not enquire from the appellant about his place of residence or other particulars so as to see whether that person could be traced. I also find it difficult to believe that in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in his premises. While considering the allegation of havala payment it is necessary to bear in mind that there is rarely any direct evidence of the contravention. It is, therefore, legitimate to draw conclusions from the facts and circumstances in each case. Of course, the circumstantial evidence should be such as would point only to the guilt of the person. It is not disputed that the appellant has not been able to offer any explanation, much less a cogent one, as to how the slip of paper containing the name and address of Gangaram has come to be in his possession. Gangaram in his statement has admitted that he had received Rs. 10,000 on 19-4-1989 though there is discrepancy in his statement and that of the appellants in regard to the pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
