TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 68
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion order dated 2-5-2003. The Appellant came before Tribunal being aggrieved by that order imposing penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on him under Section 114 of the Act. While imposing penalty, learned Adjudicating authority found involvement of this appellant in the above attempt from statement recorded from one Sri J. Sickander on 11-3-1996 as extracted in para-7 of the impugned order and insofar as that is relevant is extracted below : "Shri J. Sickander, in his statement dated 11-3-96 stated inter alia that he was the owner of Samrat Rest house at Triplicane, that in January, 1996, he met Shri Jafarullah of Singapore, who belonged to Amma Pettai, Tanjore and who was known to him for the past ten years, that the said Jafarullah putforth a plan f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... up and informed him (Sickander) that he (Jafarullah) had made arrangements for handing over large hundi amounts and asked him (Sickander) to convert them into foreign currencies as done earlier and send them through air passengers in about a month's time, that accordingly, he obtained from various brokers and operators and kept the foreign currencies ready in bundles as done in the last occasion, that as Shri Jafaruhllah had not made arrangements for air passengers, he (Sickander) approached Shri Sheik Abdullah and Shri Shaikh Abdullah informed him (Sickander) that his (Abdullah's) friend Shri Nallian Pargunam and his wife were to leave for Singapore on 8-3-96, that since the said passengers were to travel by MAS flight and as the same was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt wherein he has admitted his role as recorded in para-10 of impugned order which reads as under :- "Shri A. Jabarullah in his statement dated 11-3-96 stated inter alia that on 10-3-96 he went to the residence of Shri Sickander, his relative when Shri Sheik Abdullah, already known to him, was there, that at that time Shri Sickander informed him that he was sending foreign currencies through Shri Nallaian Pargunam and his wife whose ticket cost was borne by him and that he had arranged for an auto in which he (Jabarullah) and Shri Sheik Abdullah reached the airport to see off the passengers. In the said statement he had confirmed the recovery of passports and Customs duty paid receipts for gold import from his residence under a Mahazar." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts stated to have been admitted by the appellant were retracted as is stated in ground No. 3 of the appeal memorandum. Therefore, there was no evidence against the appellant for levy of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. It was also argued that the appellant did not travel in the car in which the persons from whose custody impugned goods were found for which there was no admission of offence committed and when the appellant went in an auto along with another to see off the said passenger, that shall not bring him to the penal consequence of law. When the appellant was arrested and sent to judicial custody for 60 days, he deserves lenient consideration and penalty levied may be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Revenue supports the adjudication ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ins the idea or intention to commit an offence. In the second stage, he makes preparations to commit it. The third stage is reached when the culprit takes deliberate overt steps to commit the offence. Such overt act or step in order to be 'criminal' need not be the penultimate act towards the commission of the offence. It is sufficient if such an act or acts were deliberately done, and manifest a clear intention to commit the offence aimed, being reasonably proximate to the consummation of the offence. As pointed out in Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar, (1962) 2 SCR 241, there is a distinction between 'preparation' and 'attempt'. Attempt begins where preparation ends. In sum, a person commits the offence of "attempt to commit a particula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 3 of the Evidence Act, a fact is said to be 'proved' when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. This definition of 'proof does not draw any distinction between circumstantial and other evidence. Thus, if the circumstances listed above establish such a high degree of probability that a prudent man ought to act on the supposition that the appellant was abettor to the offence attempting to export the impugned goods in contravention of the law, that will be sufficient proof of that fact in issue. 10. When we found that the case in hand could not ....