Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1987 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1987 (4) TMI 228 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Confiscation of primary gold under the Gold Control Act, 1968.
2. Validity of the show cause notice period.
3. Competency of certified goldsmith's opinion on gold purity.
4. Claim of inheritance under a Will.
5. Reduction of penalty imposed.

Confiscation of Primary Gold:
The appeal challenged the order confiscating 13 pieces of primary gold weighing 2545.480 gms under the Gold Control Act, 1968. The appellant, not a licensed dealer, was found in possession of the gold without proper explanation. The appellant claimed to be transporting the gold on behalf of a jeweler from Amritsar to Coimbatore. The appellant argued for the gold to be tested for purity by Mint authorities. However, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation, citing the appellant's failure to challenge the certified goldsmith's opinion on the gold's purity, which was found to be 24 carat.

Validity of Show Cause Notice Period:
The appellant contended that the show cause notice was served after the stipulated six-month period from the date of seizure, thus seeking the return of the gold. However, the Tribunal ruled that even if the notice was issued after six months, it would not invalidate the confiscation order. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal confirmed that the power to proceed with confiscation and penalty proceedings remains even if the notice is issued beyond the statutory period.

Competency of Certified Goldsmith's Opinion:
The appellant argued that a certified goldsmith's opinion on the gold's purity is not precise and requested the gold to be tested by Mint authorities. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that a certified goldsmith is competent to assess purity. The appellant's failure to challenge the goldsmith's opinion earlier led the Tribunal to uphold the purity finding.

Claim of Inheritance Under a Will:
The appellant claimed the gold was bequeathed to his children under a Will by his late father-in-law, seeking exemption from confiscation. However, the Tribunal dismissed this claim as it was raised belatedly, two years after the seizure, without any prior mention. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the appellant's version and rejected the inheritance claim, holding the appellant accountable for transporting the gold unlawfully.

Reduction of Penalty Imposed:
While confirming the confiscation of the gold, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 20,000. The Tribunal found the circumstances warranted a reduction in the penalty amount, but upheld the overall decision of confiscation. The appeal was rejected except for the modification in the penalty amount.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues raised in the appeal and the Tribunal's comprehensive reasoning behind upholding the confiscation of primary gold and other related aspects of the case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates