1996 (9) TMI 666

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, 1973 ('the Act'). The seized Indian currency amounting to Rs. 14,440 has also been ordered to be confiscated. The allegation against the appellant as contained in the memorandum of show-cause dated 17-10-1994 is that he received and made payments totalling Rs. 12,755,050 during the period from 10-4-1994 to 25-4-1994 in violation of sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Act. 2. Shri P. Mukherjee, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the impugned order is prima facie not tenable in law as the entire adjudication proceedings are vitiated for the reasons of non-supply of the relevant documents. He submitted that the appellant, in the very first response dated 27-11-1994 to the show-cause notice, demanded copies of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant's counsel vehemently opposed the fixing of the case for personal hearing when he appeared on 10-5-1995. He further submitted that on 10-5-1995 the appellant was given some of the documents but not all and, therefore, the appellant's counsel under his communication of 7-8-1995 again repeated his request for supplying the documents so that he can file his reply to the show-cause notice. Without supplying all the documents demanded by him the learned Adjudicating Officer again fixed personal hearing for 27-11-1995 when Shri Mukherjee himself appeared for the appellant and reiterated his request for supply of the necessary documents and for extension of time for furnishing a reply to the show-cause notice. Shri Mukherjee state....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 14,440. The question of confiscation of that currency, according to Shri Mukherjee, does not arise. The recovery of the said Indian currency, as a result of search of the appellant's shop under section 30 of the Act, was the subject matter of another show-cause notice of 28-9-1994 issued by the Assistant Director. In the circumstances Shri Mukherjee submitted that the impugned order insofar as it relates to the confiscation of the said amount of Rs. 14,440 is without jurisdiction and bad in law for this reason also. 6. Shri Mukherjee contended that the order is liable to be set aside on the prima facie consideration of the undisputed facts as brought out by him. 7. Shri Gadoo, appearing for the respondents, very fairly conceded....