TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 409
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... challenge the order dated 27.01.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 10.08.2022. The appeals before us are by few defendants out of many before the Adjudicating Authority and, therefore, this order would be addressing the issues pertaining to the appellants so that our finding may not affect other defendants not before us. 2. It is a case where a Prosecution Complaint was filed by the Department of Customs under Section 135 of the Customs Act,1962. The complaint was then forwarded in terms of the DRI letter dated 19.11.2019 and thereupon the Enforcement Directorate (ED) conducted investigation with its finding. One Sajjan Kumar was found to be the key person for fraudulent export an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ased out of the sale of two properties which generated an amount of Rs. 11 Lakhs and odd out of the sale of one property and Rs. 24 Lakhs from other property. An amount of Rs. 13 Lakhs was secured out of the sale of the LIC and other policies and an amount of Rs. 40 Lakhs was taken from the relatives and known persons. The fact aforesaid was ignored by the Adjudicating Authority and accordingly confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order in an erroneous manner. The appellants are not engaged and involved in the commission of crime, rather they are not remotely connected with it yet made to suffer in terms of the Provisional Attachment of their property. The impugned order thus deserves to be set aside in reference to the facts aforesaid. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods in fraudulent manner to claim undue DEPB/Duty Drawback. The details of the shipping bills with quantum of Duty Drawback claimed by the accused and Duty Drawback admissible was revealed and has been given in the impugned order. 9. The accused Sajjan Kumar was the key person in the entire fraudulent exports and was directly involved in the export operations. The modus operandi employed by him was to procure goods from various places within India and to export the same in the names of different firms/companies by inflating the value by several times. The two set of invoices bearing the same serial number and dates were prepared. The invoices of inflated value were produced before Indian Customs authorities and the other having the actu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e source to pay the consideration for the purchase of property and otherwise money was transacted in the account of the appellants by the entities belonging to the accused, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order. The perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the appellant Durgesh Devi received huge amount from Narender Singh and Shakuntla Goel, apart from M/s Saumya Traders and Vishal Jain. So far as Mamta Devi is concerned, she received Rs. 12.60 Lakhs from other appellant Ghanshyam Dass and a sum of Rs. 5.50 Lakhs from Laxmi Devi, apart from entities related to the accused. The amount aforesaid was used for the purchase of property under attachment. 11. The statements of the appellants Mamta Devi an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laim of Sajjan Kumar, 40% of the money received in M/s Designer Innovation belong to Ghanshyam Dass and accordingly out of Rs. 4.43 Crores received by the said company Rs. 1.77 Crores was belonging to Ghanshyam Dass. The amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs was recovered during the course of search from the premises of Ghanshyam Dass. It was explained by Ghanshyam Dass to be a portion of sale proceeds of one of the ancestral property in his name but he failed to fortify the facts aforesaid and even before us. 13. The counsel for the appellants thus failed to disclose the source to secure the amount not only by the appellants but the persons who extended the amount in the bank account of Mamta Devi and Durgesh Devi and otherwise it is said by passing of....