Page 169 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] MANAK KALA v. UNION OF INDIA 703

Travels was searched and Indian currency amounting to ` 7,95,000/- and various
documents were found in the said premises. It is alleged that on that date, Sh.
Ashish Jain made a statement that he was employed with M/s. Anukampa Tours
and Travels for the last one and a half years and was an employee of Sh. Manak
Kala (the appellant herein). He stated that Sh. Manak Kala had a travel agency in
Jaipur under the same name and that he had instructed him to receive payments,
which came from Dubai and distribute them under the instructions of some per-
sons resident in Dubai. He also stated that he had received an aggregate sum of
` 68,50,000/- (` 11,00,000/- on 15-11-1994; ` 10,00,000/- on 12-10-1994;
` 15,00,000/- on 24-9-1994; ` 22,50,000/- on 23-11-1994; and ` 10,00,000/- on 3-11-
1994) from some unknown persons. A sum of ` 7,95,000/- was found in Indian
currency at the said office and the same was seized.
3.3 According to the Enforcement Directorate, Sh. Ashish Jain had stat-
ed that the said amount was received from some unknown person under the in-
struction of a person resident in Dubai in the morning of 4-10-1995.
3.4 Sh. Ashish Jain retracted his statement on 5-10-1995 (immediately,
on the next day of the search).
3.5 Thereafter, the residential premises of the appellant were searched
on 7-10-1995. However, no incriminating documents were found.
3.6 On 29-8-2014, a show cause notice (memorandum dated 29-8-2014)
was issued to the appellant as well as Sh. Ashish Jain, calling upon them to show
cause as to why adjudication proceedings, as contemplated under Section 51 of
FERA, should not be commenced for the alleged contravention of Section 9(1)(b)
of the FERA. This was founded on the allegation that the appellant/Ashish Jain
had received a sum of ` 76,75,000/- (` 68,50,000/- stated to have been received
by Sh. Ashish Jain and ` 7,95,000/- seized from the office premises) in contraven-
tion of Section 9(1)(b) of FERA. The appellant was also called upon to show cause
as to why a sum of ` 7,95,000/- be not confiscated under Section 63 of FERA.
3.7 It appears from the record that the said show cause notice was chal-
lenged by way of a writ petition before this Court. The fate of the writ petition is
not mentioned. However, it is assumed that the said petition was dismissed.
3.8 The appellant responded to the said show cause notice and filed his
written submissions. He, inter alia, contended that the said amount seized was
entirely in Indian currency and was duly reflected in the books of account of
M/s. Anukampa Tours and Travels. He emphasized that M/s. Anukampa Tours
and Travels did not have any dealings in foreign currency or with any foreigner
or any person resident abroad. And, its business was entirely confined to domes-
tic business activities. It was also pointed out that Sh. Ashish Jain had retracted
his statement as the same had been recorded forcibly and under coercion.
3.9 On 17-2-2014, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order holding
that it would be reasonable to infer that the appellant received funds from differ-
ent persons in India on instructions of persons resident outside India for distri-
bution of compensatory payments. It was further held that Sh. Ashish Jain was
only an employee and carried out orders of his employer (the appellant). In view
of the said conclusion, the Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty of
` 75,00,000/- and further ordered confiscation of the sum of ` 7,95,000/- being
the amount seized under Section 63 of FERA.
3.10 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred an
appeal before the Special Director (Appeals), Enforcement Directorate (hereafter
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  169