TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firming the seizure of Indian Rupees 15,66,340/-. Brief facts of the case given by the appellant. 2. It is submitted that the appellant Company is an authorized money changer by the Reserve Bank of India (in short as RBI) and, therefore, authorized to deal in buying and selling of the foreign currency. Despite strictly adhering to the norms of RBI while dealing with the foreign currency, the respondent searched the office premises of the appellant on 18.08.2021. The appellant fully co-operated in the search operation and explained that there is no Hawala or illegal money transaction. The respondent yet seized the currency under Section 17 of the Act of 2002. 3. The appellant made a detailed representation along with supporting docu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the papers. However, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the order of seizure. 7. The learned counsel further submitted that the signatures of the appellant were taken on various papers typed and hand written and they were ordered to appear before the authority on 29.11.2021. The appellant appeared before the authority and thereupon a detailed books of accounts of the Head Office and Branch Office were sent to justify availability of the amount and even to clarify that there was no Hawala transaction through the appellant. In view of the above, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the bank statement of the date prior to the seizure to indicate withdrawal of a sum of Rs.8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 to the effect that he used to collect cash to the tune of Rs.8 -10 lakhs on daily basis from Mr. Nazeer of M/s Blessy Forex Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant company). It used to be on the instructions of Leena Paulose since November-December, 2020. It was further stated that during the period of January, 2021 to the first week of August, 2021, he had collected around Rs.15 crores in cash from Mr. Mohamed Nazeer out of which he had arranged entries of Rs.2.5 to 3 crores via card swiping into the bank account of Nail Artistry and rest amount was handed over to Leena Paulose. 11. It was further stated that one B. Mohanraj approached him for transfer of Rs.1 crore to the account of "The Super Car Artistry" with a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Leena Paulose, wife of Shri Sukesh Chandrasekhar. The statement of Arun Muthu under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 was sufficient to show involvement of the company for making transaction after withdrawal of the cash amount from the bank almost on daily basis. The amount was to be given or to be transferred to ArunMuthu or Leena Paulose, wife of Sukesh Chandrasekhar. The allegation against the appellant could be established not only pursuant to the statement of Arun Muthu but his own employee Haja Mohideen. It is apart from the mobile conversation for cash transaction and even image number of 10 rupees to facilitate the Hawala transaction. We are not going further deep into the allegation because investigation against the appellant is stil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubordinate to him to- (a) enter and search any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft where he has reason to suspect that such records or proceeds of crime are kept; (b) break open the lock of any door, box, locker, safe, almirah or other receptacle for exercising the powers conferred by clause (a) where the keys thereof are not available; (c) seize any record or property found as a result of such search; (d) place marks of identification on such record orproperty, if required or make or cause to be made extracts or copies therefrom; (e) make a note or an inventory of such record or property; (f) examine on oath any person, who is found to be in possession or control of any record ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to from where he was getting and putting the money in the bank account. No material to show innocence of the appellant could be produced and otherwise the statement recorded under Section 50of Arun Muthu proved involvement of the appellant in Hawala transaction, that too at his instance or to facilitate Sukesh Chandrasekhar and his wife, Leena Paulose. Thus, the first argument raised by the appellant cannot be accepted. 18. The second argument is in reference to the facts of the case. It is submitted that the amount was withdrawn by the appellant from time to time and has been reflected in the bank account. We have perused the bank account which definitely shows withdrawal of Rs.6.5 lakhs and 8 lakhs on the relevant date and may be lyin....