TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (1) TMI 950
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly) against the appellant, Pukhraj Ganeshmal Jain @ Prakash for contravention of provisions of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for having received an amount of Rs. 12,00,000 in six instalments on instructions of a person resident outside India without the permission of Reserve Bank of India. An amount of Rs. 1,00,000 has been adjusted towards penalty from the Indian Currency recovered and seized from the custody of the appellant where presently, this appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. 3. I have heard elaborate arguments from Shri Prem Ranjan, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Shri A.C. Singh, DLA for the respondent and gone through the record, relevant law and judicial pronouncements caref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under the impugned order which has been adjusted towards penalty. 4. A show-cause notice was issued against the appellant for having received Rs. 12,00,000 on instruction from abroad, where the appellant was held guilty and being aggrieved this appeal has been preferred by the appellant to set aside the impugned order. 5. The telephone number of the appellant was found noted in the documents seized from the custody of Abid Nellukutta Abdul Rehman which shows the association of appellant with A.N. Abdul Rehman. Abid Nellukutta Abdul Rehman admitted in his statement on three dates that he was indulged in receiving and making the payments on instruction from abroad. He explained that how he came in contact with Badruddin of Dubai and st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e provisions of this sub-section which may be granted conditionally or unconditionally by the Reserve Bank, no person in, or resident in, India shall- (b) receive, otherwise than through an authorised dealer, any payment by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India; Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause, where any person in, or resident in, India receives any payment by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India through any other person (including an authorised dealer) without a corresponding inward remittance from any place outside India, then, such person shall be deemed to have received such payment otherwise than through an authorised dealer :" 8. Thus as per statutory scheme contai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stant case, the retracted confessional statement of the appellant is corroborated with the documents seized from A.N.A. Rehman, his statement as well as attended circumstantial evidence of the case which go on to prove the charges against the appellant. 10. A.N.A. Rehman gave a detailed statement on three dates under which he furnished the detailed information which was based on his personal knowledge. The appellant, Pukhraj Ganeshmal Jain @ Prakash in his statement dated 8-9-1987 deposed that Ahmed of Dubai asked him on telephone of his residence to make jewellery for his sister and also that he would arrange the payment in cash through some person and accordingly, he received amounts in cash at his shop through some unknown person and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t are not acceptable and liable to be rejected. That being so, the appellant has rightly been held guilty by the Adjudicating Officer. 12. I find no force in the contention of the ld. Counsel of the appellant that the impugned order has been passed without giving an opportunity of cross examination of A.N.A. Rehman. However, it is settled principle for cross examination of witnesses that it cannot be permitted merely on demand until and unless certain reasons and circumstances are brought out or established. No such situation is brought out by the appellant for demanding cross examination. Here it will be relevant to mention the Ruling of Supreme Court in Surjit Singh Chhabra v. UOI 1997 SCC (Criminal) 272 where the Hon'ble Court obs....