1980 (7) TMI 261 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold by authorities based on non-declaration.
2. Validity of appellant's explanation for possession of gold.
3. Authority's power to seize gold before the last date for purchasing gold bonds.
4. Exercise of discretion by authorities for fine in lieu of confiscation.
5. Proportionality of confiscation to violation of rules.
6. Misconception in the Government of India's order regarding appellant's case.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves an appeal against the confiscation of gold by authorities due to the appellant's failure to declare it. The appellant claimed the gold was given by his father-in-law for investment in gold bonds, but the authorities found his explanation unconvincing and confiscated the gold, imposing a penalty under Rule 126-L (16). The appeal to the Gold Control Administrator and further revision to the Government of India were dismissed, leading to the filing of a writ petition challenging the orders.

2. The appellant argued that he had obtained the necessary forms for gold bonds, indicating no intention to evade declaration. However, the court noted discrepancies in the appellant's behavior, such as denying possession of gold initially and the form not being from the proper authority. The court upheld the lower authorities' findings, emphasizing that unless the findings are perverse or baseless, they must be respected.

3. The appellant contended that authorities had no power to seize gold before the last date for purchasing gold bonds. The court rejected this argument, citing that notifications did not restrict authorities from inspecting or confiscating gold if found in violation of rules.

4. Regarding the exercise of discretion for a fine in lieu of confiscation, the court clarified that while the option exists under Rule 126-FM sub-rule 8(a), authorities are not obligated to offer it. As the authorities did not provide this option, their actions were deemed legal.

5. The appellant argued that the confiscation of gold was disproportionate to the violation. However, the court differentiated this case from a previous decision, stating that under the rules, confiscation is mandatory unless the option for a fine is given.

6. Lastly, the appellant raised a point of misconception in the Government of India's order regarding his case. The court noted that while there might have been a misunderstanding on a minor aspect, the main contention was adequately addressed in the order. Therefore, the court upheld the Government of India's decision, finding no reason to interfere with the lower court's judgment.