TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (6) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the respondent submitted that as the findings of the Adjudicating Officer are based on voluntary statements of the appellants, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that pursuant to an information that one Shri Munisamy (appellant in Appeal No. 91 of 1987) had received a sum of Rs. 20,000 from Shri Murugesan, officers of the Enforcement Directorate interrogated Shri Murugesan (appellant in Appeal No. 90 of 1987) on 17-10-1986 who admitted before the officers that he had paid Rs. 20,000 to Shri Munisamy under the instructions from one Shri Srinivasan (a French citizen) residing at St. Paul Reunion. Thereafter, the officers also interrogated Shri Munisamy, who stated that he had received Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vide Adjudication Order No. AD/MAS/11 & 12/87(SV) dated 8-1-1987. (b) Penalty of Rs. 500 imposed on Shri Murugesan for violation of section 9(1)(d) vide Adjudication Order No. AD/MAS/ 13/87(SV) dated 8-1-1987. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order(s), the appellants have filed these appeals. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have perused the records of the case. I would now first discuss SCN III and, then, SCN II and SCN I. 6. SCN III. The allegation levelled against Shri R Murugesan (appellant in Appeal No. 90 of 1987) in this SCN is that he, a person resident in India, made a payment of Rs. 20,000 to Shri Munisamy, resident of Pondicherry, by order of Shri Srinivasan, resident of St. Paul Reunion, a per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cipal I paid the money to Shri Munisamy. I acted in good faith and bona fide and I did not have any connections in whatever manner in the transaction and I acted only for and on behalf of Shri Srinivasan. I was not aware that I should take any permission special or general from the Reserve Bank of India for the payments of money belonging to Shri Srinivasan to his nominated person in India." A vital question which arises out of the above is whether section 9(1)(d) will not be attracted against a person who, acting as an agent, makes any payment out of his principal's monies to, or for the credit of, any person under instructions of his principal, resident outside India. Section 9(1)(d) provides that "Save as may be provided in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of India, received Rs. 20,000 from Shri Murugesan, a local person other than an authorised dealer in foreign exchange, by order or on behalf of Shri Sivaprakasam of St. Paul Reunion, a person resident outside India and thereby contravened section 9(1)(b). At the outset, it may be stated that Shri M. Sivaprakasam of St. Paul Reunion is the brother of Shri Munisamy (appellant). Shri Munisamy has admitted in his statement dated 17-10-1986 made before the Enforcement Officer and in his letter dated 13-12-1986 written in reply to the show-cause notice as well as in the written submissions filed by him that he received Rs. 20,000 from Shri Murugesan on 15-10-1986 under instructions of his brother, Shri M. Sivaprakasam of St. Paul Reunion and dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcial Bank, Pondicherry and thereby contravened the provisions of section 9(1)(a). The appellant does not deny the said payment. He has rather admitted that he has deposited the said amount in the said account. He, however, maintains that he did not commit any contravention as the money belonged to Shri Srinivasan and was deposited by him in the account of Mrs. Sarojini, wife of Shri Srinivasan. This plea is not maintainable as family transactions including payment made to a lady on behalf of her husband residing abroad are not excluded from the scope of section 9(1)(a) under which a person is prohibited from making 'any payment to or for the credit of any person resident outside India'. The expression 'any person' occurring....