TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s dismissed. A. No. G/389/87/MAS. - The appellant is a licensed Gold dealer running his business under the name and style New Mannadiar Jewellery at Market Road, Palghat. On 13-8-1984 at about 4.30 P.M. the Central Excise authorities visited the licensed premises of the appellant and found 158.750 gms. of gold ornaments, detailed in the Impugned order, kept in the shop unaccounted. The authorities also recovered a further quantity of 44.150 gms. of new gold ornaments and 27.800 gms. of old ornaments from the possession of the appellant. Since the appellant had not accounted for the ornaments in question in the statutory register and since the authorities had reason to believe that they formed stock in trade, they affected seizure of new g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same and dismiss Gold Control Appeal No. 389/87. 5. Appeal No. G/390/87/MAS. - We shall now take up Gold Control Appeal No. 390/87 relating to non-renewal of the appellant s Gold Dealer licence for the year 1986-88 by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise by his order dated 25-8-1987 and duly confirmed in appeal under the impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dated 30-11-1987. 6. Shri Prabhakara Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the charge of contravention is only in regard to non-accountal of 230.700 gms., of old and new ornaments of purity varying from 20 to 22 ct. It was urged that the appellant had not contravened any provisions of the Act at any time in the past and has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esumably because the quantity unaccounted for is not much. At this stage the learned Senior D.R. submits that he has no instructions in this regard as to whether the Department has launched any prosecution against the appellant or not. Shri Prabhakara Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand is offering to swear to an affidavit that the Department has not launched any prosecution is contemplating to launch one. Since we proceed on the assumption that no prosecution has been launched, it is certainly open to the Department to seek modification of this order, if a prosecution is launched as per law. We would also like to follow the ratio of the ruling in the case of K.P. Raman v. Collector of Central Excise, Coimbato ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
