1987 (7) TMI 474 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of Collector of Central Excise confirming confiscation of gold and imposing penalty under Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
- Interpretation of provisions of the Act regarding certified goldsmiths and manufacturing processes.
- Denial of adjournment requests during adjudication proceedings.
- Non-production of crucial evidence, G.S. 13 register, by Central Excise authorities.
- Violation of principles of natural justice and fairness in the adjudication process.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras challenged the order of the Collector of Central Excise confirming the confiscation of primary gold and imposition of a penalty under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The appellant, a resident of Berhampur, was intercepted by the Police authorities, and the gold in his possession was seized on suspicion of being stolen property. The appellant's brother, a certified goldsmith, had melted gold ornaments belonging to another individual, Bhaskar Rao, and sent the melted gold to another goldsmith through the appellant. The adjudication proceedings were marred by the denial of adjournment requests by the appellant's brother and Bhaskar Rao, leading to the impugned order.

The appellant's counsel argued that as per the Act, a certified goldsmith can send gold for special processes to another goldsmith, which was the case here. The non-production of the G.S. 13 register, crucial evidence accounting for the gold, by the Central Excise authorities severely prejudiced the appellant's defense. Despite efforts to secure the register, it was not made available during adjudication, violating principles of natural justice. The adjudicating authority proceeded without considering this vital piece of evidence, leading to an unfair decision against the appellant.

The Tribunal acknowledged the procedural irregularities and the significance of the G.S. 13 register in establishing ownership of the gold. The failure of the Central Excise authorities to produce this document was viewed seriously, and the Tribunal deemed it necessary to remit the matter back for reconsideration. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, directing a fresh consideration by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Vishakhapatnam, with an opportunity for the appellant and Bhaskar Rao to present their case. Notice of hearing was also to be sent to Bhaskar Rao, emphasizing fairness in the proceedings. The Tribunal instructed the adjudicating authority to secure and present the G.S. 13 register during the new adjudication to ensure a just outcome.