9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B/DD of 1994 under which a penalty of Rs. 37,500 has been imposed on the appellant. Appeal No. 56 of 1995 is directed against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/264/B/DD/RAJ of 1994 under which a penalty of Rs. 50,000 has been imposed on the appellant and Appeal No. 57 of 1995 is directed against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/266/B/DD/RAJ of 1994 under which the quantum of penalty imposed is Rs. 50,000. All the adjudication orders are dated 16-12-1994 and were despatched on 12-1-1995. Each adjudication order was made in pursuance of a show-cause notice (SCN) each, charging the appellant with contravention of section 9(1)(d). 2. The factual allegations in support of the charge are also similar in all SCNs except that the allegations are made against di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities, in response to the summons were issued to the appellants under section 40 of the Act. In reply to certain questions, Prakash Bhargava has stated that he obtained the pay orders from Shailesh Sejpal who is doing some brokerage business and arranging such payment on a premium of 10 per cent; that accordingly the appellant asked for a cheque of Rs. 4 lakh, that after one or two days he came to the appellant s office and delivered the pay order for the amount specified in each SCN and that in lieu of the same, the appellants paid him the amount specified in Prakash Bhargava s statement which is equivalent to the amount of pay order in each case plus 10 per cent thereof. 4. Shri Desai has challenged the adjudication order on severa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmission made by the learned counsel that the question of the appellant acting by order of or on behalf of Dr. Raji Menon does not arise. Moreover, the learned Adjudicating Officer has also found that the receipt of the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs from the NRE Account of Dr. Raji Menon could not be without consideration . However, obviously enough, there cannot be any consideration where the amount is received from Dr. Raji Menon and the payment is also made by order of or on behalf of Dr. Raji Menon. If the case is, as is impliedly made out from the mere fact of receipt of the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs that the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 5,50,000 to Sejpal, the payment of the amount of Rs. 5,50,000 cannot be said to be by order on behalf of Dr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
