9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of seized gold ornaments. 2. Imposition of personal penalties on the appellants. 3. Compliance with statutory requirements under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. 4. Validity and authenticity of the voucher covering the seized gold ornaments. 5. Retraction of confessional statements by the appellant. Detailed Analysis: 1. Confiscation of Seized Gold Ornaments: The appellants challenged the confiscation of gold ornaments seized by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. The gold ornaments were seized under Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, during a search operation outside the shop of M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri. The Revenue alleged that the seized gold ornaments were not entered in the statutory accounts and were sent for clandestine sale. However, the appellants contended that the ornaments were duly accounted for in the statutory records and covered by a valid voucher. The Tribunal found that the defense of the appellants was well-founded and supported by both documentary and circumstantial evidence, including the immediate retraction of the confessional statement by the appellant and the presence of a valid voucher. 2. Imposition of Personal Penalties on the Appellants: The Adjudicating Authority had imposed separate penalties on both appellants. The appellants argued that the penalties were unjustified as the seized gold ornaments were duly accounted for and covered by a proper voucher. The Tribunal observed that the Adjudicating Authority's decision was primarily based on the initial statement of the appellant, which was retracted immediately. The Tribunal held that no importance could be attached to the incriminating part of the statement, as it was retracted and discredited by the evidence on record. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants. 3. Compliance with Statutory Requirements under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968: The appellants were charged with contravening Sections 27, 33, 36, and 55 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and Rules 11 and 13 of the Gold Control (Forms, Fees, and Misc. Matters) Rules, 1968. The Revenue alleged that the seized gold ornaments were excess and not entered in the statutory accounts. The Tribunal found that the seized gold ornaments were duly accounted for in the statutory records and covered by a valid voucher. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not allege that the entries in the statutory records or the voucher were made subsequently. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants complied with the statutory requirements. 4. Validity and Authenticity of the Voucher Covering the Seized Gold Ornaments: The appellants argued that the seized gold ornaments were covered by Voucher No. 119 dated 25-1-85, which was found in the Voucher Book during the search of their premises. The Tribunal observed that the Adjudicating Authority did not discuss the retraction of the appellant's statement or the presence of the voucher. The Tribunal held that the non-availability of the voucher at the time of seizure was of no consequence, as the voucher was duly prepared and found during the search. The Tribunal also noted that the Adjudicating Authority's finding that "there was no sale materializing" tacitly supported the conclusion that the transaction was genuine. 5. Retraction of Confessional Statements by the Appellant: The appellant Shri Manoj Kumar had retracted his confessional statement immediately after the seizure, claiming that the gold ornaments were duly accounted for and covered by a proper voucher. The Tribunal emphasized that it is a trite law that retraction affects the voluntary nature and truthfulness of a confessional statement. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority did not consider the retraction or the supporting evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal held that no importance could be attached to the incriminating part of the appellant's statement. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to prove the charges against the appellants. Consequently, both appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Tribunal held that the seized gold ornaments were duly accounted for in the statutory records and covered by a valid voucher, and the penalties imposed on the appellants were unjustified.
|
