AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (4) TMI 666
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t') along with an order of confiscation of the seized amount of Rs. 5,50,000, recovered during search, in terms of section 63 of the Act. 2. The appellant was permitted waiver of penalty deposit subject to a pre-deposit of Rs. 50,000 for hearing appeal per order dated 17-10-1997 passed by the FERA Board on the waiver application against which a Civil Writ Petition No. 2849 of 1998 was preferred before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of this civil writ petition per order and judgment dated 28-8-1998 confirming the order dated 17-10-1997 of the FERA Board but granted 30 days from the date of the judgment for depositing the money. The appellant deposited Rs. 10,000 within 30 days time but remaining Rs. 40,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Along with this show-cause notice, the following documents as relied upon are supplied to the appellant : (1) Mahazar dated 14-11-1994 drawn as seizer memo for the search of Muneer Cutpiece & Readymades, No. 84, Dr. Besant Road, Madras. (2) Certain seized documents from search, i.e., (a) telephone index diary belonging to the appellant with 20 written pages, also inscribed therein one Jeddah telephone number as 0096626436602, (b) one STD telephone receipt voucher with Jeddah telephone number as 0096626436602 recorded on it and the money paid for having conversation on that number on 14-11-1994, (c) one paper chit with an address and telephone number and certain calculations written therein, (d) one paper chit with writin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Court in Misc. Petition No. 1022 of 1998. 5. We have considered the record and the submissions made by the parties. We find that the appellant has challenged the impugned order on several grounds. Some of the grounds pertain to the merit of the factual position of case whereas others are legal grounds. Shri Nazeer had pointed out that he had sought cross-examination of the mahazar witnesses but the same was denied. He had also submitted that the learned Adjudicating Officer did not consider the arguments taken by the appellant in his reply to the SCN and that he erred in law in rejecting the affidavits in spite of the fact that the department did not lead any evidence to the contrary but only disputed the genuineness of affidavits and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Adjudicating Officer would be justified in placing reliance on the STD receipt. The second documentary evidence is a chit containing addresses and telephone numbers and some calculations. The appellant has advanced arguments in the reply to the SCN as to why this document does not prove the charge. He has denied the handwriting on it to be his own and argued to have an opportunity to disprove the statement that he noted down the name and amount while allegedly speaking to Moideen over the phone. Obviously if handwriting is that of the appellant, then that part of the statement can be proved to be true, if not, then that part is false. The learned Adjudicating Officer should consider these arguments and give his own fresh finding g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 14/15-11-1994, when the appellant was in the custody of Enforcement Officers. 8. Regarding the evidence of the affidavits, the appellant should be given an opportunity to produce the persons who had given affidavits to show that they had the money to lend the respective amounts to the appellant. The learned Adjudicating Officer must appreciate that any inference of violation of FERA cannot be drawn merely from the viability of the appellant to account for, to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority, the possession of Rs. 5,50,000. The appellant owes adjudication only to the income-tax authorities. However, if there is independent evidence to link the Indian currency with the violation of the Act, such Indian currency can certa....