9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure of gold ornaments. 2. Contravention of Sections 33, 36, and 55 of the Gold (Control) Act. 3. Adequacy of evidence provided by the appellant. 4. Appropriateness of the penalty imposed. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Seizure of Gold Ornaments: The appellant firm, a licensed gold dealer, was dissatisfied with the confiscation of seized gold ornaments and the imposition of a penalty. The seizure occurred on 22-11-1985 when officers found gold ornaments in excess during a check of the appellant's business premises. The appellant contended that the seizure was illegal under Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act. The defense argued that the excess gold was covered by proper vouchers, which were provided immediately after the seizure. However, the Adjudicating Authority dismissed this defense as an afterthought. The Tribunal noted that the panchnama did not identify the excess ornaments by weight, form, description, length, or marks, rendering the seizure questionable. Despite this, the Tribunal found that the excess ornaments were segregated during the search, thus validating the seizure under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Contravention of Sections 33, 36, and 55 of the Gold (Control) Act: The Show Cause Notice accused the appellants of violating Sections 33, 36, and 55 of the Gold (Control) Act. The Adjudicating Authority dropped the charge under Section 33 but found the appellants guilty under Sections 36 and 55. Section 36 mandates that gold transactions by licensed dealers comply with prescribed conditions. The appellants argued that the excess gold was acquired from six dealers under proper vouchers and that the Collector was informed via letters dated 23-11-1985 and 2-12-1985. The Tribunal found substance in this argument, noting that the letters and vouchers were indeed sent and remained unchallenged by the Department. The Tribunal concluded that the defense was not an afterthought and that the gold was lawfully acquired. 3. Adequacy of Evidence Provided by the Appellant: The appellants provided vouchers and affidavits from six individuals to support their claim that the excess gold was lawfully acquired. The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority did not verify the vouchers' correctness or summon the individuals for cross-examination. The Tribunal found that the evidence provided by the appellants was credible and that the Department failed to challenge it effectively. The Tribunal emphasized that affidavits in defense should be cross-examined if the Adjudicating Authority doubts their veracity, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Harbans Lal v. M.L. Wadhawan & Ors. 4. Appropriateness of the Penalty Imposed: The Tribunal considered the appellants' argument that the failure to make immediate entries in the statutory records was a minor technicality. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the gold was lawfully acquired, and there was no allegation of clandestine activity. Citing previous rulings, the Tribunal held that confiscation was not warranted in cases where transactions were duly established. The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of the gold ornaments and reduced the penalty to Rs. 15,000, emphasizing the need for the appellants to remain careful and vigilant in the future. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. The order of confiscation was set aside, but the penalty was upheld and reduced to Rs. 15,000. The Tribunal modified the impugned order of the Collector accordingly.
|
