1996 (3) TMI 536

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he USA. 2. The dispensation application and the appeal were heard on 13-11 -1995. After hearing the parties, I decided to waive the requirement of pre- deposit of the entire amount on the condition that the appellant deposited a sum of ₹ 30,000 by way of pre-deposit. Shri Gopal Prasad, who appeared on behalf of the appellant drew my attention to the appellant's letter dated 16-2-1994 and the memorandum of appeal and submitted that the appeal may be disposed of after considering these documents without further hearing and that the final order be issued after the appellant intimates the deposit of the amount of ₹ 30,000 within 30 days as directed. The appellant has complied with the direction by depositing the said amount of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h of the impugned order he has assumed that the penalty has been imposed and directed that "the penalty imposed on Smt. Shanti Devi Jain ₹ 60,000 (Rupees Sixty Thousand Only)... be deposited in the office of Dy. Director..." Thus, the impugned order asked the appellant to deposit a sum of ₹ 60,000 as penalty without actually imposing the said penalty. 4. Dr. Shamsuddin appearing for the respondent submitted that as discussed in the impugned order the appellant's denial of making any payment to Manmohan Khorana has to be considered in the background of other connected facts and circumstances. The appellant's story of gift has been rightly rejected by the learned Adjudicating Officer for the reason that the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the recipients thereof make payment in cash to the account holders or their nominees or agents in lieu of the receipt of the amount by NRE cheques. Therefore, according to Dr. Shamsuddin, the learned Adjudicating Officer has rightly concluded that the appellant had made the payment of ₹ 2 lakhs to Manmohan Khorana in lieu of receiving an equivalent amount by way of NRE cheques from his account. Dr. Shamsuddin also stated that in the type of activities prohibited under the FERA there would rarely be any direct evidence and, therefore, the charges against the persons proceeded against under the Act have to be scrutinized in the light of the circumstantial evidence and not on strict standards of a criminal trial before a Court of law....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of gift is unfounded. The appellant has not availed of the opportunity of personal hearing so as to controvert such inference by producing any further evidence, if she had any. In fact none has been produced by her in her memorandum of appeal also. It is also to be borne in mind that the question whether the transaction is that of a gift has to be legally determined. A payment of money cannot be considered a gift merely because the person giving the amount or the person receiving the amount calls or labels it as by way of gift. In my opinion the learned Adjudicating Officer has rightly rejected (for the reasons stated by him that) the appellant's stand that the payment made by Manmohan Khorana was in the nature of gift. The learned Adju....