TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1536
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1999 to the extent of Rs. 6,28,02,750/-, in exercise of provision of section 13(1) of FEMA, 1999. (II) Penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/- for contravention of provision of Section 3(c) of FEMA,1999 to the extent of Rs. 6,30,15,750/- in exercise of provision of section 13(1) of FEMA, 1999. (III) Confiscation of amount of Rs. 17,000/- for contravention of Section 3(c) of FEMA, seized by Sub-Inspector of Police, Vengara from his house on 07.08.2010 which was taken over by Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Calicut in terms of Section 37 of FEMA on 08.08.2010 and lying in the custody of Respondent E.D., Kochi in terms of Section 13(2) of FEMA, 1999. 2. As per the facts of the case, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vengara v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Abdu. Fourteen months back to the incident, Abdu Rahiman telephoned him from Saudi Arabia and requested him to distribute money to the local persons as per his instructions on remuneration of Rs. 8,000/- per month for this job. Thereafter, Kunhi started receiving and distributing the money as per the instruction of Abdu Rahiman. On 07.08.2010, on account of some inconvenience he entrusted Rs. 2,16,730/- to Ibrahim along with 13 addresses for distribution of money. He admitted the writings of accounts contained in the ledger and notebook in his handwriting including the names, addresses and phone numbers of the persons to whom the money was paid. Rs. 17,000/- seized from his house was meant for making payment to one Jamseer having phone no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and 13 chits containing the name and addresses of persons for distribution of money was handed over to him by Kunhi Muhammed on 07.08.2010. Out of said amount, he distributed Rs. 1,32,730/- to various persons and balance sum of Rs. 84,000/- was seized by police before he could deliver the same to the remaining persons. As follow up enquiry made with 13 persons whose name appeared in the seized documents recovered from the house of Kunhi Muhammed, they accepted the receipt of Indian currency on the instruction of their relatives etc. residing in foreign countries. Accordingly, Kunhi Muhammed was charged for contravention of Section 3(c) and 3(b) FEMA, 1999 for receiving Rs. 6,30,15,770/- and making payments of Rs. 6,28,02,750/- during....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Vinod Solani Versus Union of India, (2008) 16 SCC 537 wherein it is held as under: "It is a trite law that evidence brought on record by way of confession which stood retracted must be substantially corroborated by other independent and cogent evidence, which would lend adequate assurance to the court that it may seek to rely thereupon. We are not oblivious of some decisions of this Court wherein reliance has been placed for supporting such contention but we must also notice that in some of the cases retracted confession has been used as a piece of corroborative evidence and not as the evidence on the basis whereof alone a judgment of conviction and sentence has been recorded.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry statements without any corroborative evidence in this regard. He further pointed out that the amounts shown as receipt and payment in the complaint dated 16.02.2018 and referred to in the show cause notice dated 23.02.2018 and the impugned adjudication order are identical, however, the additions of amounts are not correct and tallying with the total amount shown and therefore, charge is defective and the order based on defective charge is not sustainable and needs to be set aside. He further argued that the cause of action according to the complaint was initiated on 07.08.2010 and thereafter from 08.08.2010 when E.D., Calicut received the case records from the police authorities, however, complaint was filed before the Adjudicating Autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the impugned order in absence of prejudice caused to him. Moreover, this Appellate Tribunal has to base its finding on legal issues only in view of admitted facts pertaining to recovery along with the documents. He further contended that the question of giving different or divergent opinion does not arise, while issuing Show Cause Notice. Ld. Adjudicating Authority have gone through the complaint and after being satisfied with the contents of the same, it issued show cause notice on the basis of documents and statements on record. Prayer was accordingly made to dismiss the present appeal being devoid of any merit. 5. After hearing the rival submissions, I have given thoughtful consideration on the same. The search & seizure is not denie....