TMI Blog1962 (4) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that the burden of establishing the case was on the Department. The second ground of attack was that the Collector contravened the principle of 'natural justice in making the impugned order. We shall presently consider these grounds in detail. But before doing so it is necessary to set out the material facts. 2. The 2nd petitioner is the son of the 1st petitioner; the petitioners are dealers in bullion at Davangere; on 24-1-59, the Superintendent of Central Excise (Head Quarters Preventive) Bangalore, after obtaining a search warrant from the Special First Class Magistrate Davangere searched both the shop premises as well as the residence of the petitioners at the shop premises no incriminating article was found but when the hou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds. 3. On the receipt of the report of the Superintendent Central Excise the Collector called upon the first petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioners gave a written explanation. Thereafter, the case was posted for hearing and the first petitioner was asked to appear before the Collector of Central Excise either in person or through a counsel. On the date of hearing, i.e., 27-4-1959, the second petitioner as well as his counsel Sri Ganji Veerappa appeared before the Collector, Central Excise. Sri Ganji Veerappa argued on behalf of the 1st petitioner. The contention taken on behalf of the first petitioner was that he was a bona fide purchaser from the aforementioned Govind and Ganapathy, and therefore he was not guilty of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. Hence, we have to address ourselves to the question whether the enquiry in question is vitiated for any of the reasons mentioned above. 6. It was strenuously contended by Sri Ganji Veeiappa the learned Counsel for the petitioners, that though the proceedings before the Collector were not criminal proceedings as such, they without doubt are in the nature of Criminal Proceedings. Therefore considerations which are relevant in deciding criminal proceedings ought to have been borne in mind by the Collector while deciding the points in dispute. To be more specific his contention was that the burden of establishing that the gold seized was smuggled gold was heavily on the Department and that burden having not been discharged the Collector w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chetty. The presumption provided in Section 178-A is not a conclusive presumption. But it shifts the burden of establishing that the goods seized are not smuggled goods on to the (person from whom the goods in question were I seized. But before the Department could take advantage of that presumption it is necessary for the Department to establish that the officer who seized the articles in question had reasonable belief that the seized roods were smugeled goods. It is complained on behalf of the petitioners that that fact has not been established. Is this contention correct? Before searching the residence of the petitioners the Superintendent of Central Excise had obtained a search warrant from the Special First Class Magistrate at Devanger ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;. It was strenuously contended that the Collector did not question the appriser of the Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate, Ltd., Davangere, who appraised the gold seized and the Superintendent of Central Excise (who conducted the search in this case) in the presence of the petitioners. For that matter the Collector does not appear to have questioned them at all. He proceeded on the basis of admitted facts. The Appriser of the Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate, Ltd. Davangere was questioned by the Superintendent of Central Excise to find out whether the gold seized was pure gold. -The first petitioner had admitted before the Superintendent of Central Excise as well as before the Collector that the seized ingots were gold ingots. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly militating against the petitioners. If from those circumstances the Collector drew the inference that the gold seized is smuggled gold the same is not open to any valid objection. The circumstances in question are admitted circumstances and therefore there was no need to examine any one to prove the same. 10. Sri Ganji Veerappa contended that his clients had mentioned the names of the persons from whom they had purchased the gold in question and it was up to the officers of the Department to trace them; if they had been either indifferent or negligent in tracing those persons, his clients cannot be held responsible for the same. This contention is a very feeble one. If the bona fides of a receiver of smuggled goods are held to be esta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
