9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disposed of by a single order. The brief facts of the case are : 3. On 24-2-1977, based on information, the Preventive Officers of Central Excise, Calicut, located one P.V. Raikar (appellant in 64/82) at M/s. Shoba Jewellery and along with him they went to his place of temporary stay at room No. 45, Srihari Lodge, M.P. Road, Calicut and searched the same. From his suit-case gold ornaments, old and new, weighing in all 5317 gms. were found. According to the subsidiary G.S. 12 produced by P.V. Raikar P.V. Raikar was a licensee under the Act holding licence No. 46/63 at Karwar which at the relevant time was valid up to 1966-he had a stock of only 3169.250 gms. of new ornaments. The excess quantity of 1775 gms. of old ornaments and 372. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n issued for the receipt of the old ornaments copies of which were with Raikar. The persons who were said to have given the old ornaments to Raikar were examined by officers of the Department and formal statements recorded from them on 5-4-1977, It was then elicited that information regarding the seizure was known to all the four persons, except P.N. Ramachandra Rao, though of a letter sent by Raikar in late February 1977 to V.T. Jacob (M.J. Lawrence, V.T. Jacob and M.J. Clietus are brothers-in-law and Francis is the brother of Jacob. Each of them was not aware of the details of ornaments entrusted to Raikar, or of the new ornaments to be made for them. Similar statement was recorded from Ramachandra Rao except for the difference that he cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the Collector. The Administrator also held that the claim that the old ornaments belonged to the five individual was not tenable. It was also not possible to identify or co-relate, all gold ornaments entered in the register with those seized. He also did not accept the story regarding new ornaments having been made from out of 400 gms. of standard gold bars supplied by Bhima & Bros. to Raikar for manufacture of new ornaments and brought by V.V. Raikar, brother of P.V. Raikar from Karwar to Calicut on 23-2-1977 and left with P.V. Raikar for onward carriage to Kottayam. He upheld the order of confiscation and imposition of penalty N passed by the Collector but reduced the fine in lieu of confiscation to Rs. 20,000/- and the penalty to R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be treated so seriously as to warrant the subsisting fine and penalty. 7. The authorised representative for the other appellants adopted the arguments of the representative for Raikar. 8. The SDR in reply stressed that in the statement recorded immediately after the seizure, P.V. Raikar claimed to have obtained all the old ornaments from Ramachandran Rao of Geetha Hotel, Ernakulam. When contacted next day itself, Ramachandran Rao denied having given any old ornaments whatsoever to Raikar. The first claim that the ornaments had been received from five other different individuals was made only in a letter written to the Collector 25 days after the event. Again, the individuals themselves made claims of their own only on 18- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re made in three days, it is incongruous that they were taken to P.V. Raikar at Calicut by his brother V.V. Raikar and left with P.V. Raikar, instead of taking them direct to Kottayam. He also urged that in spite of the entry in the register at Karwar, it is accepted that there was no entry in the subsidiary G.S. 12 register with P.V. Raikar at Calicut. Hence the offence is established. 10. We have considered the arguments of both sides. As rightly pointed out by the SDR the story of P.V. Raikar regarding the old ornaments does not hang together. For one thing, he claimed to have received 1775 gms. of old gold ornaments from P.N. Ramakrishna Rao of Geetha Lodge who promptly denied any such transaction. Eventually Rao's brother claime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s referable only to the premises of the gold dealer at Karwar and not to the gold dealer who had brought other ornaments with him after entering the same in a subsidiary G.S. 12 register which he carried with him is not acceptable. The ornaments continued to be held by a licensed gold dealer wherever he may be and subsidiary G.S. 12 register is merely an extension of G.S. 12 register maintained in the licensed premises of the dealer. To accept the plea of the representative of Raikar that Section 55 will relate only to accounts maintained at Karwar would nullify the objectives sought to be achieved by Section 55 viz. proper accounting of gold in the possession of a licensed dealer from the time he receives it to the time he relinquishes con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
