Page 174 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

708 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

whom the said funds had been distributed to. As noticed above, neither the ad-
judicating authority nor any of the appellate authorities, including the Tribunal,
had applied their minds as to whether the said statement was voluntary or not.
Thus, the question whether the appellant could be held guilty for violation of
provisions of Section 9(1)(b) of FERA, on the sole basis of the statement of Sh.
Ashish Jain, must be answered in the negative.
21. The next question to be addressed is whether there is any material
on record to establish that the appellant was guilty of violation of provisions of
Section 9(1)(b) of FERA if the statement of Sh. Ashish Jain is ignored. Clearly, the
answer to the above question must also be in the negative as there is no material
whatsoever on record to establish the same. None of the orders of the authorities
below, namely, the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellate Authority or the Tri-
bunal refer to any cogent material to substantiate the allegation of the commis-
sion of an offence under Section 9(1)(b) of FERA.
22. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that confiscation of
the amount of ` 7,95,000/- from the office of the appellant is unsustainable. Con-
sequently, the present appeal must be allowed. The order dated 17-2-2014 passed
by the Adjudicating Authority (Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate); the
order dated 24-9-2014 passed by the Appellate Authority (Special Director, Ap-
peals); and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal are unsustainable and
are, accordingly, set aside.
23. The amount seized from the premises of the appellant are liable to
be returned to the appellant.
24. The appellant has been deprived of his funds for a considerable pe-
riod of time. As observed earlier, the confiscation of the amount is wholly illegal
and unsustainable. This Court notes that Rule 8 of the Foreign Exchange Man-
agement (Encashment of Draft, Cheque, Instrument and Payment of Interest)
Rules, 2000 provides for repayment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of seizure till the date of payment. Thus, this Court is of the view that
the said amount is required to be returned to the appellant along with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum. It is so directed.
25. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 708 (Ker.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.K. Abdul Rehim and T.V. Anilkumar, JJ.
MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION
LTD.
Versus
C.C.E., COCHIN

C.E. Appeal No. 10 of 2019, decided on 6-12-2019
Rectification of mistake - Scope of - Decision taken by Tribunal based
on law as it stood then - Law declared as otherwise, based on a change of opin-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  174