Page 170 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

704 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

‘the Appellate Authority’). Before the Special Director (Appeals), it was contend-
ed that the Adjudicating Authority had found no document which would indi-
cate violation of any provisions of FERA. It is also pointed out that the Adjudi-
cating Authority (Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate) had specifically
recorded in the order dated 17-2-2014, that the documents did not reveal any-
thing of interest from a FERA perspective. The appellant further called upon the
Enforcement Directorate to produce Sh. Ashish Jain if any of his statement were
sought to be relied upon against the appellant, as Sh. Ashish Jain was no longer
employed with the appellant.
3.11 On merits, it was stated that the currency seized was duly reflect-
ed in the books of account and therefore, the same could not be retained. The
appellant explained that the books reflected that an amount of ` 8,00,000/- had
been sent from the registered office of M/s. Anukampa Tours and Travels at Jai-
pur. Out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of ` 5,000/- had been taken by one of
the directors (Mr. Ramesh Joshi) for expenses and the remaining amount was
available in the office. It was also explained that the said amount was for paying
the booking amount of a chartered flight on behalf of certain groups that had
desired to charter a flight from Delhi to Bombay, Bombay to Jaipur, Jaipur to
Bombay and back to Delhi. This charter was scheduled for 29-10-1995 and
Archana Airways had been contacted for the same. The said concern had esti-
mated charges to be ` 11,94,166/- and had demanded 50% of the said amount as
advance. The petitioner also challenged the jurisdiction of the Enforcement Di-
rectorate to commence any proceedings as there was no material to indicate that
the appellant was involved in any transaction in foreign exchange or with for-
eign entities.
3.12 The Appellate Authority [Special Director (Appeals)] noted down
the contentions advanced by the appellant; however, returned no finding in that
regard. In conclusion, the Appellate Authority reduced the penalty to ` 7.95 lacs
and directed that the same be adjusted against the amount seized.
3.13 Aggrieved by the said order dated 24-9-2014 (the Appellate Or-
der), the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
3.14 The Tribunal noted the facts and held that the Adjudicating Au-
thority had observed that the statement of Sh. Ashish Jain had no evidentiary
value and therefore, had imposed a penalty on the appellant without taking into
account that said statement made by Ashish Jain on 4-10-1995.
3.15 Despite the aforesaid observations, the Tribunal rejected the appel-
lant’s appeal by an order dated 28-2-2016 (which is impugned herein).
4. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.
5. The questions that arise for consideration in this appeal are :
(i) Whether it is established that the appellant can be held guilty of vio-
lation of provisions of FERA solely on the basis of the statement of
Ashish Jain recorded on 4-10-1995?
(ii) If the answer to the above question is in the negative, whether there
is any other material or material to establish that the appellant had
violated the provisions of Section 9(1)(b) of FERA?
6. Ms. Malhotra, the Learned Counsel who appeared for the petitioner
submitted that there was no material or evidence on record which could estab-
lish commission of any offence under FERA. She submitted that the original or-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  170