2009 (9) TMI 1082

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....als are required to be allowed? (ii) whether certain background facts given in the impugned order with regard to alleged arrangement of receiving of fixed deposits which are not part of the Show Cause Notice No. T-4/15-M/97(SCN-VI) dated 16.7.1997 can be taken into consideration for holding the appellants guilty even when these very facts have resulted in passing of a different adjudication order after issuance of another Show Cause Notice ? (iii) whether anything can be brought into the impugned order which are not part and parcel of the Show Cause Notice against the appellants and on that basis, the appellant can be held guilty? 2. The factual position is not in controversy in-as-much as that an amount of Rs. 10570000/- is accepted b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ide letter dated 5.9.96. Further it is contended that even otherwise the Exchange Control Manual by Chapter 15 permits deposits from NRIs for a period of 3 years but repatriation is not permitted. In this situation, it is contended that, contravention of section 9(1)(e) cannot and does not happen. Further the contentions are made that the allegations against the appellants are only contravention of section 9(1)(e) and scope of SCN cannot be expanded further as held in Valteammal Actri v. Director of Enforcement AIR 1983 Madras. The arguments are also made that allegations in the SCN must be specific and cannot be vague otherwise total proceedings arc vitiated. In this regard reliance is placed on judgment reported in : - (a) Sawai Singh v....