TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (11) TMI 537
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,50,000 on the appellant for contravention of provision of section 9(1)(d) of the Act for the reason of receiving total payment of Rs. 27,18,000 and also making payment totalling to Rs. 12,67,000 from/to various persons in India by order or on behalf of a person resident outside India. 2. A Show Cause Notice No. T-4/22/B/91 dated 5-4-1991 was issued to the appellant seeking his show cause why the adjudication proceeding should not be held against him for receiving the total payment of Rs. 27,18,000 from a person resident in India and also making payment totalling to Rs. 12, 67,000 to persons in India by order or on behalf of his friend Shri Mohammed Chhabu of U.K. resident outside India without any general or special permission from th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce this appeal has been taken up for hearing on merits. 5. Shri R.C. Gajjar, advocate appeared for the appellant. Shri T.K. Gadoo, DLA represented the respondent. At the close of hearing both sides were given liberty to file their respective written submissions, if any, within 10 days. Since no such written submissions have come forward this appeal is being disposed of without further waiting. 6. Shri R.C. Gajjar, advocate for the appellant contends that the appellant had not received any amount during the relevant period from any person and has never made any such payment totalling to Rs. 12,67,000 to any person as alleged. It is submitted that appellant does not know any person named Mohammed Chhabu of U.K. and he has not met and s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dication order cannot sustain and is liable to be quashed. 8. Per contra Shri T.K. Gadoo, DLA contended that statement of the appellant was recorded under section 40 of the Act and was amply corroborated. It is submitted that the documents marked "C-9", "D-2", "D-16" and "K-4" recovered from residential premises of Ms. Hawabibi Morea are fully corroborated with the page 2 of the document recovered and seized from the residence of the appellant on 15-4-1990. Shri T.K. Gadoo stated that documents marked "C-9", "D-16" and "K-4" recovered from the residential premises of Ms. Hawabibi Morea contains the signatures of the appellants. The appellant identified his elder brother's signature on the document "D-2". The amount mentioned in the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idential premises of the appellant on 15-4-1990. The statements of the appellant recorded earlier were confirmed by his statement made under section 40 of the Act on 18-4-1990. The learned adjudicating authority has observed in paragraph (vi) at page 6 of the adjudication order that appellant in his reply dated 28-6-2001 clearly admitted his signatures on the documents seized from the premises of Ms. Hawabibi Morea. 11. As regards the right of cross examinations of the witnesses whom the appellant desired it is seen that summons were issued but ultimately none of the witnesses could be available for which the adjudicating authority cannot be blamed. 12. As regards the referred case laws on the question of admissibility of the seized d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....served in K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India [1992] 3 SCC 178 as under: "We think it is not necessary to recapitulate and recite all the decisions on this legal aspect. But suffice to say that the core of all the decisions of this Court is to the effect that the voluntary nature of any statement made either before the Customs authorities or the officers of Enforcement under the relevant provisions of the respective Act is a sine qua non to act on it for any purpose and if the statement appears to have been obtained by any inducement, threat, coercion or by any improper means that statement must be rejected brevi manu. At the same time, it is to be noted that merely because a statement is retracted, it cannot be recorded as involuntar....