TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 470
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve Appeal challenges the order dated 6-9-1988 passed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation, Appellate Board by which order, the Appeal filed by the Respondent came to be allowed and the order of the Assessment Director of Enforcement dated 30-12-1985 came to be set aside. 2.The factual matrix involved in the Appeal is as follows : The Enforcement Director received reliable information that M/s. Sud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., dated 18-12-1985 came to be issued to the Respondent for violation of the provisions of Section 8(1) read with Section 64(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (for short the said Act), alleging against him that he had gone to M/s. Sudarshan Jewellers for selling foreign exchange which was seized from him by the officers of the Directorate. The said Show cause notice was replied to by his wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing customs declaration in respect of the foreign exchange as the same was to be declared on it being brought into country. The Assistant Director relied upon the statement of his wife as recorded in the Letter dated 24-12-1985 to the effect that the foreign exchange in question would have been encashed from M/s. Sudarshan Jewellers at a premium, had the same not been seized by the officers of Enf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erefore, of the view that the charge u/s 8(1) read with Section 64(2) of the said Act, has not been sustained. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5000/- on the Respondent as also the confiscation of the seized foreign currency. 4.As indicated above, it is the said order of the Tribunal, which is impugned in the present Appeal. 5. We have heard the Learned Co....