9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal Nos. 94/1992 and 95/1992 are dismissed for want of prosecution and I will deal only with the facts of appeal No. 91/1992. 3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22-1-1992 in case No. T-4/B&M/85 whereby the Special Director Enforcement, New Delhi has imposed a penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/- for violation of provision of 9(1)(b) and ₹ 10,00,000/- for violation of provision of 9(i)(d) of FERA. 4. The facts leading to the case is that the information was received with one Shri K.K. Jamaluddin had received instructions from one Shri Siraju Ali from Dubai. On this information his residential premises were search under Section 38 of FERA on 30-3-1984. Shri Jamaluddin was not available at that time but certain docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was recorded on 9-4-1984 who recorded the same immediately. On the basis of this search a show cause notice was served on the appellant on 14th March, 1985 alleging violation of Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA. 6. The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the party and appreciating the material on record held the appellant guilty and levied penalty by the impugned order which is under challenge in the present appellant. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that after receiving of show cause notice the appellant filed his detailed reply to the show cause notice at the Annexure 'C' through his Advocate Shri T.N. Kaul wherein he had in practical denied the allegations. In his reply he had stated that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant and retracted statement of the co-noticee Shri K.K. Jamaluddin who has also retracted from his statement. The Counsel for the appellant therefore submitted that in view of the judgment of Apex Court in case of Vinod Solanki - 2009 (233) E.L.T. 157 (S.C.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 337 (S.C.), a penalty cannot be sustained in the eyes of Law. 8. Shri Naveen Kumar, ALA on the other hand contended that the retracted statement of the present appellant is fully corroborated by the recovery of ₹ 86,000/- from the house of the appellant and from the statement of Shri K.K. Jamaluddin and Smt. Khadooja, wife of the present appellant and therefore, he contended that the orders should be maintained. 9. The question involved in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
