TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (6) TMI 550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and seized amount of Rs. 75,000/- under Section 63 for contravention of Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) FER Act, 1973 on the reasons that appellant in appeal No. 416/2000 received the recovered and seized amount on the instructions of one Raziq Hasan resident of Saudi Arabia and he further paid the amount received from aforesaid non-resident to appellant in appeal No. 415/2000. These appeals along with respective application for dispensation of pre-deposit are pending since long so this Tribunal after granting dispensation due to long pendency proceeds further to dispose off this appeal on merits. 4. The counsel Shri Rafiq Ahmed argued that impugned order is merely based on uncorroborated admissional statements which are immediately ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her appellant can keep this small amount in safe custody when total money was not given to him but substantial amount of Rs. 70,000/- is kept by appellant in appeal No. 415/2000 himself. 7. Though threat and coercion is alleged for retraction of the admissional statement made before the Enforcement Directorate but nothing is brought out in support of the allegation of threat and coercion. This bald statement is difficult to be accepted in terms of the judgment in K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 178 when following is observed : "We think it is not necessary to recapitulate and recite all the decisions on this legal aspect. But suffice to say that the core of all the decisions of this Court is to the effect that the volu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount of Rs. 75,000/- whose lawful possession requires explanation but appellants failed to do so. It is well settled legal position that a retracted statement can also be accepted for arriving at guilt as held in K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin - (1997) 3 SCC 721 = 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 as follows :- "It would thus be seen that there is no prohibition under the Evidence Act to reply upon the retracted confession to prove the prosecution case or to make the same basis for conviction of the accused. Practice and prudence require that the court could examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution to find out whether there are any other facts and circumstances to corroborate the retracted confess....