TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 352
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the accounts which were obtained from the respective banks under section 33 (2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, it was detected that the said NRE accounts were credited with huge amount of foreign exchange and Indian currency transferred from the other NRE accounts and cheques, drafts, pay orders were issued from the said NRE accounts in favour of various persons in India. Residential premises of Prakash Parwani and Geetu G. Lalwani were searched under section 37 of FERA, 1973 on 18-7-1995. Though, nothing incriminating was found at the residence of Jeetu G. Lalwani, however, foreign currencies, Indian currency, FD receipts and certain documents were seized from the residence of Prakash B. Parawani. The documents are mentioned in the panchnama. 3. Statement of Prakash B. Parawani was recorded under section 39 and 40 of FERA, 1973 on 18-7-1995 and 24-7-1995 who stated that when he came to India, in February, 1994 he met one Rajendra Devraj Mehta @ Raju Devraj Mehta @ Raju Mehta of Pune and opened NRE accounts with Punjab National Bank, Pune and another NRE account with Sangli Bank out of the foreign exchange provided by the said Rajendra D. Mehta and handed over ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses of the appellant Prakash Bafna and Ratandeep Jewellers were also searched on 2209-1995, however, nothing incriminating was found. As a result of personal search of the appellant under section 34, of the FERA, 1973 certain incriminating documents were found and seized. Statement of the appellant was recorded under section 40 of FERA, 1973, in which he stated that Rajendra Mehta and he were partners of Ratnadeep Jewellers and he used to finance the said Rajendra Mehta to open NRE accounts by NRIs to purchase foreign exchange in local market for the deposit into the NRE accounts. He used to give the details of the names and addresses of the persons in whose names, cheques, DDs. and pay orders were issued and the profit used to be divided equally. He further told that at page 'I' of the documents seized from him by the officers of the ED, that 'RD' written on the first line means Rajendra Mehta and '27/50' RD NRE meant that he had to pay Rs. 2,75,000 to the said Rajendra Mehta for the purchase of foreign currency and for deposit in NRE account. 7. The details of the transactions undertaken have been given in the impugned order. It is alleged that Rajendra D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned order dated 30-08-1999 the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant. 11. Shri R.K. Handoo, advocate representing the appellant has submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has failed to appreciate that Rajendra D. Mehta in association with his brother-in-law was doing alleged activities and the appellant had no association or connection with the disputed transactions/contraventions. It has also been submitted that the appellant was held guilty and penalized by the same Adjudicating Authority who through another Adjudication Order No. ADJ/127/B/SD/PK/96 dated 24-07-1996 held the noticees guilty of similar charges. However, the Adjudication Order was quashed in appeal No. 262/1996 vide order dated 10-09-1997 of the FERA Board and matter was remanded. The same adjudication Authority vide his order dated 05-01-2001 dropped the proceedings, copy of which is on record. Submission is that in respect of similar imputations the Assistant Director in adjudication order No.ADJ/94/AD/JS/B/2/2000 No. 3951 dated 28-02-2000, copy of which has been filed in the proceedings against the appellant were dropped. These proceedings were based on the same statement of the appellant dated 23....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that only one call notice was issued fixing the matter for 24-06-1999 which was duly replied by the appellant on 21-06-1999 through Registered post requesting for some other date as his counsel was abroad and was not available, this communication of the appellant has not been considered by the Adjudicating Authority. Further submission is that in the impugned order it has been wrongly mentioned that another date for personal hearing was fixed on 23-03-1999 but nobody appeared. However, the Adjudicating Authority had fixed 24-03-1999 for personal hearing in respect of SCN T-4/6-B/SDG/OJD/96 in which the appellant alongwith his counsel had appeared and in pursuance of the personal hearing, written submissions were submitted on 09-04-1999 and thereafter there was no information about the alleged hearing in respect of the said SCN. Thus the Adjudicating Authority was wrongly miscarried by recording that any hearing was fixed in the instant matter on 23-03-1999. It has also been contended that the Adjudicating Authority lost sight of the fact that the appellant was not named by the NRIs and the bankers and the only evidence against him was the statement of Rajendra D. Mehta which is e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... details of names and addresses of the persons in whose names, cheques, drafts, pay orders were issued and the profit was shared equally with Rajendra D. Mehta. He also explained the code being used in the documents and also furnished the details of the transactions. It has come that the appellant alongwith co-noticee Rajendra D. Mehta purchased foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 1,23,29,010 unauthorizedly without the permission of RBI and credited the said foreign exchange alongwith cheques drawn on other NRE accounts totalling to Rs. 1,80,88,618 without the permission of RBI and made payments totalling to Rs. 1,72,97,500 to various persons in India on behalf of the persons resident outside India. It has also come that the appellant alongwith co-noticee Jeetu G. Lalwani had received a payment of Rs. 37,000/-without the permission of the RBI therefore, a clear case of violation of the provision of 8 (1), 8(2), 9 (l)(a) and 9(l)(d) of FERA, 1973 is made out against the appellant. The noticees were not afforded due opportunity to defend themselves. Minor discrepancies in mentioning the appellant as notice No. 1 at some places is of no consequence. Amount of penalty imposed is perfect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the noticees Murarilal M. Jalan, Sanjay M. Jalan and Smt. Renu M.Jalan had admitted having received profits from the NRE account of Prakash Parwani against which they paid money in cash to Prakash Bafna (appellant herein), on behalf of Prakash Parwani. The Adjudicating Authority further held that the noticees denied having paid any money to Prakash Parwani of Brazil and stated that the transaction were made by the authorized representatives and the four noticees of the Jalan families did not know the NRI Prakash Parwani of Brazil from whose account they had received drafts. They also stated that they had received gift cheques. The Adjudicating Authority was of the opinion that a case for discharge of the whole Jalan family members was made out and in respect of the appellant and co-noticees Rajendra D. Mehta and Prakash Parwani also proceedings were dropped. Similarly in the Adjudication Order ADJ/B/SDE/PKE/2001/8379 dt. 05-01-2001 passed by Sh. P.K. Ajwani, Special Director for alleged contraventions under section 9 (1) (a), 9 (1) (b) and 9 (1) (d) for identical allegations the proceedings were dropped against all the co-noticees of the said Adjudication Proceedings and the....