TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the statutory books. Consequently, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant firm to show-cause as to why the seized gold/gold ornaments weighing 1989.700 gms. be not confiscated u/s.71 of the Gold (Control) Act for contravening the provisions of Sections 8,33,36 and 55 of the Gold(Control) Act read with Rules 11 13 of Gold (Forms, Fees Misc. Matters) Rules, 1968 and also to show-cause why further penalty be not imposed upon them u/s.74 of the Gold Control Act. It was the defence of the appellant that out of 265 pieces of gold ornaments weighing 1788.000 gms., 240 pieces weighing 1434.100 gms. were received from M/s. Kailash Jewellery House on 1-12-1984 vide Issue Voucher No. 457 and 25 pieces weighing 353.900 gms. were received from Shri Kewal Krishan, a certified Goldsmith on 1-12-1984. The appellant firm also produced photo copy of the said voucher and the relevant portion of GS.13 showing the above transactions. Regarding two pieces of gold total weighing 201.700 gms., it was stated by the appellant firm that this gold was received from Mrs. Preetam Kaur, w/o Shri Dalip Singh, New Delhi in the shape of gold ornaments which were me.l.t.ed to convert into new gold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having found them guilty u/s. 55. ibid ordered for the confiscation of the seized gold/gold ornaments giving an option to redeem the same u/s. 73 of the Gold Control Act and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- u/s. 74 of the said Act. In other words, the learned authority exonerated the appellant firm of the charge under Sections 8,33 and 36 but found him guilty u/s, 55 of the Act only. 3. During the course of arguments, Shri Harbans Singh, Advocate who appeared for the appellant firm, argued on the said premises that the failure of the appellant firm to make entries for the gold ornaments in the register immediately on receipt, though constitutes an offence u/s. 55 of the Act is of a technical nature and therefore, serious view is not called for in the circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the entries in the statutory record could not be made as the Munim who was on part-time employment under the appellant firm was not present at the time of search as he used to come in the afternoon. He vehemently argued that the seized gold/gold ornaments were received in the morning of 1-12-1984 itself and the raid took place immediately ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een committed but an extremely serious view is not called for in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand as laid down in M/s. Kailash Jewellery House v. Collector of Central Excise, supra. In that case also 170 pieces of gold ornaments weighing 3549.500 gms. were found lying in the shop of the appellant firm of that case which were not entered in the statutory books and the entire gold was confiscated by the Adjudicating Authority and a personal penalty was also imposed. On this point, the following observations made by this Hon ble Tribunal in that case are pertinent: 7. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides on this count. It is not correct to argue that entries made in the registers and the requirement that vouchers should accompany gold, are merely technical matters. The law of Gold (Control) has prescribed certain technicalities to achieve its objects. Therefore, it is important that all the rules should be followed. In this regard, the explanation that entries would have been made at the end of the day seems plausible, but we take note that the vouchers could not be produced on the spot for whatever reasons it may be. At the same time, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em is on excessive side as the said evidence (sic violation) is merely of technical nature. The record of the case shows that both the Goldsmiths did not keep their registers up to date and for that they have their own reasons. There is no allegation that the appellants had disposed of the ornaments in a clandestine manner. In our opinion, a penalty of proper nature would serve the purpose obviously to keep them careful and vigilant in future. Accordingly we reduce the penalty from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 500/- each only." The same view was taken in the case of Shri Parshotam Lal, M/s. Parshotam Jewellers v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi (Order No. A/101/86-NRB dated 14-2-1986) and M/s. Jamna Dass Parkash v. Collector of C.E. Customs, Chandigarh 1986 (24) E.L.T. 618 (Tri.) (Order No. A/105/86-NRB dated 28-2-1986) 7. The learned lower authority before whom Order No. A/182/85-NRB dated 23-5-1985 rendered in the case of M/s. Kailash Jewellery House, New Delhi, supra was cited failed to appreciate the ratio of that case, His observation that in that case the partner of the firm had stated on the spot that the sized new gold ornaments have been received from the dealer of Amr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
