1987 (11) TMI 180 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of Section 36 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and Rule 13 of the Gold (Control) Forms, Fees and Miscellaneous Matters Rules, 1968.
2. Confiscation of gold ornaments and imposition of fine and penalty.

Analysis:

The case involves an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, against a licensed Gold Dealer for contravention of Section 36 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, read with Rule 13 of the Gold (Control) Forms, Fees and Miscellaneous Matters Rules, 1968. The respondent, a licensed Gold Dealer, transferred 3,142.000 gms. of new gold ornaments to his relatives under a voucher, which did not contain the purity of the ornaments and the signature of the transferee. The Department sought absolute confiscation or an increase in the quantum of fine and penalty. The key question was whether the breach warranted confiscation of the goods or an upward revision of the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the Department did not contest that the ornaments were part of the dealer's stock and were transferred to repay a loan. The only issue was the technical irregularities in the voucher. Rule 13 mandates specific particulars in the voucher, including the signature of the transferee and purity of the ornaments. The voucher in question lacked these two details. However, the Tribunal found that the absence of these particulars did not amount to a deliberate offense. The Tribunal emphasized that the irregularities were technical in nature and did not indicate any deliberate violation or mala fides on the part of the dealer.

The Tribunal further highlighted that the Department did not challenge the authenticity of the voucher and acknowledged that the breach was limited to the missing details. The Tribunal referred to a communication from the Gold Control Administrator, which suggested heavy penalties for deliberate offenses, but found no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing in this case. The Tribunal concluded that the breach was venial and technical, not indicating a conscious disregard of statutory obligations. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, ruling against confiscation or an increase in the penalty.