9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (8) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rected against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum dated 3-9-1990 levying a fine of Rs. 30,000/- in lieu of confiscation of 508.700 gms. of primary gold rods of 23.5 ct. purity under Section 73 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 ("the Act" for short), besides a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Sec.74 of the Act. 2. Shri A. Thiyagarajan, ld. counsel for the appellant at the outset submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating authority in para 9.4 accepting the appellant's mother as the owner of the gold in question and in such a context, the proviso to Sec. 71 would be applicable under law. 4. I have considered, the submissions made before me. The short question, of law that arises for my consideration is whether the gold or ornaments belonging to third party would be liable for confiscation for any act of omis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h act or omission was without the knowledge or connivance of the person to whom it belongs it shall not be ordered to be confiscated but such other action, as is authorised by this Act, may be taken against the person who has, by such act or omission, rendered it liable to confiscation". In the present case the adjudicating authority in para 9.4 of the impugned order has observed as under :- "9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same. In this view of the matter I have no other alternative except to set aside the order of confiscation. 5. Though Gold (Control) Act stands repealed as on date, I do not think any intervention is called for in regard to the quantum of penalty, since the same cannot be said to be either harsh & excessive. I, therefore, confirm the same in entirety, In the result the appeal stands disposed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
