AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (4) TMI 667
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14 of the Act. The appellant has already deposited, by way of pre-deposit, a sum of Rs. 90,000 being the total amount of the penalties imposed on him. This order disposes of the appeal on merits. 2. The allegations on which the adjudication proceedings were initiated against the appellant are that during August 1989, one Dhimant Doshi of New York visited India to negotiate with various artists in India for performing in six shows in America that were organised by Krishan Lalwani of New York; that the appellant agreed with Doshi to participate in the said shows for remuneration at the rate of Rs. 50,000 per show; that towards his remuneration the appellant received from Doshi Rs. 50,000 in cash in India in August 1989 and Rs. 2,50,000, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his plea was not accepting he sought permission of the learned Adjudicating Officer vide his letter dated 22-2-1992 that he may be allowed to call six witnesses whose names were given, against whom also similar allegations were made, though of different amounts. The intention obviously was to prove that what Doshi had stated about the payments in the USA is not true and that those artists also had not received any amount in the USA. The appellant also asked the department to furnish any details of the alleged payment in foreign exchange equivalent to Rs. 2,50,000. In the course of preliminary hearing in presence of Shri J.N. Arora of the respondent, it was pointed out on behalf of the appellant that it is quite common amongst the artists to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amed against the appellant is that he received a sum of Rs. 50,000 in India on behalf of Shri Krishan Lalwani of New York thereby contravening section 9(1)(b). In my opinion, the facts as assumed and relied on by the department do not at all constitute contravention of section 9(1)(b). It is the case of the department that the appellant agreed with Doshi of New York to perform in the six shows that were to be held in the USA @ Rs. 50,000 per show as his remuneration for the said performance and that the payment of Rs. 50,000 was made in India towards the said remuneration. In my opinion, the learned Adjudicating Officer erred in not correctly appreciating the alleged agreement or Doshi with the appellant, assuming the existence of such agre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the department has not formed any charge of contravention of section 8(1) for having unauthorisedly acquired foreign exchange in the USA equivalent to Rs. 2,50,000. Ordinarily, the omission to frame a charge of contravention of section 8(1), in the circumstances, would affect the force of the charge of contravention of section 14. Be that as it may, while examining the findings, I would proceed on the factual allegation that the appellant received in USA foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 2,50,000. The appellant has categorically denied the allegation. Therefore, his own statement of 8-3-1991 relied on in the SCN to sustain the charge does not implicate him. In the result, the only evidence of the department to sustain the charge is Doshi'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant? At the outset, Doshi's statement cannot be considered to be relevant and is not an admissible evidence on the question of payment by Krishan Lalwani to the appellant in USA. Doshi has not claimed that the payment had been made in his presence. In the circumstances, the relevant witnesses to the alleged payment could be Krishan Lalwani and the appellant himself. There is no evidence of Krishan Lalwani to support the alleged payment. The appellant has denied having received any amount from Lalwani. The result is that the department has not brought in any evidence to prove that Krishan Lalwani had paid the alleged amount in foreign exchange to the appellant. 9. The learned Adjudicating Officer seems to have inferred the alleged paymen....