TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (4) TMI 667
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and were imposed with penalty. 2. The appellant in appeal 271 of 2002 was the 1st noticee in the adjudication proceedings while the appellant in appeal 273 of 2002 is the 2nd noticee; the first noticee (in appeal 271/2002) was found guilty of sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) and was imposed with penalty of Rs. 1,25,000 and Rs. 45,000 respectively while the 2nd noticee (in appeal 273/2002) was found guilty of violation of section 9(1)(a) read with section 64(2) and of section 9(1)(b) and imposed with penalty of Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 5,000 respectively; the penalty amount was ordered to be adjusted from the seized amounts of Rs. 1,10,00,000. 3. The indictments against the appellants were that they were involved in illegal dealings of foreign excha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey imposed with penalty as above. Aggrieved with the said findings and orders of penalty, these appeals were preferred. 4. The only question arises for decision is whether any illegality or impropriety vitiates the impugned orders so as to call for intervention by this Forum? 5. I have heard the counsel for the appellants and also the Ld. DLA for the respondent. The ground raised in the appeal being common to both and the point for decision also being the same in respect of alleged transactions, both these appeals are jointly disposed of per this common order as below. 6. The point:- The counsel for the appellants submits that it was without any reliable materials on record that the Adjudicating Officer had held these appellants guilty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edent for the violation of section 9(1)(b) or 9(1)(a); so also on the statement of appellants, the counsel submits that there was no reason to disbelieve the retracted statement of the appellants in respect of the alleged violation of section 9(1)(b) to the tune of Rs. 80,00,000 and pleading another part of the same statement to the tune of Rs. 4,28,012 and Rs. 12,22,435. The counsel points out that there is no evidence at all regarding the violation of section 9(1)(b) to the tune of Rs. 4,02,812 or on the case of violation of section 9(1)(a) to the extent of Rs. 12,52,389. 8. As on the aspect of under-invoicing of the exports to the tune of Rs. 4,28,012 the appellants had submitted before the Adjudicating Officer that the goods were alrea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsaction in respect of the sum of Rs. 80,00,000 allegedly received by Dilip Kundu from persons on behalf of Teja Singh, the issue was rightly answered in the negative; Rs. 4,31,973 is the amount received by Dilip Kundu on behalf of Teja Singh as the difference between the actual price of the goods and the under-invoiced price of goods exported by Teja Singh through his concern T.S. Mechanicals or T. Sons Mechanical Works, Ludhiana as per the statement of Teja Singh dated 1-4-1998. So also there is admission to the effect that the sum of Rs. 13,94,780 was the amount pertaining to the payment of commission made by Dilip Kundu to Bangladeshi indentors in India as a part of agreed commission of 5 per cent of the actual price of goods out of whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) to the tune of Rs. 4,28,012 as Dilip Kundu had received the said amounts from Bangladeshi Importers, the said amount being the difference in the actual value and under-invoiced value of the exports. 10. Though much was argued by the counsel for the appellants as on the alleged violation in respect of section 9(1)(b) regarding payment of commission to the tune of Rs. 12,22,438, the statement of Teja Singh as on the payment of Rs. 12,52,309 towards 3 per cent commission to Bangladeshi indentors in Kolkata corroborated with the statement of Dilip Kundu on 9-11-1997 as on the payment of the commission to Bangladeshi indentors with all relevant details as given by Teja Singh, the statements as given by both of them being in uniform tone on t....