TMI Blog1980 (7) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Collector, Central Excise, Hyderabad. 2. On 30-4-1966 the Officers of the Headquarters Preventive Intelligence Unit (Gold Cell) attached to the Hyderabad Central Excise Collectorate Office visited the appellant s premises and enquired whether he was in possession of any primary gold. The appellant replied in the negative. His house was searched and 13 slabs of gold were recovered from an iron safe. Notice was issued to show cause why the gold seized from him should not be confiscated. The appellant submitted an explanation stating that the gold was given to him by his father-in-law long prior to 1963 and that he wanted to invest the same in gold bonds and for that purpose he obtained a gold bond form from Sri Asaram Malani on or about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elied upon by the learned Judge and the authorities below is that the appellant denied that he was in possession of any primary gold when the concerned officers came to his house and questioned him and the gold was found only after a search of the appellant s house. If really his case that the gold was given to him by his father-in-law even before 1963 and that he intended to invest it in gold bonds and obtained the form for that purpose is true, one would expect him to mention that to the authorities instead of denying that he was in possession of any gold. Sri Sarathy submitted that it is not correct to say that the appellant denied that he was in possession of the gold and referred us to some evidence in this connection adduced in the cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot choose to exercise this discretion and give an option, it cannot be said that they are acting illegally or contrary to the Rules. 6. It was also argued that the confiscation of the gold was out of proportion to the violation of the relevant Rules. In this connection reference was made to a decision of a Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 321 of 1969, dated 23-11-1972 where dealing with the Customs Act, it was observed that the primary purpose of levying the penalty is to make the levy a deterrent and not to treat the punishment as retributive. This case has no application to the facts of the present case which relates to confiscation of gold. Under the Rules, the authorities are bound to confiscate the gold unless they give an option to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
