TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, armed with the authority of the search warrant issued by the Assistant Collector (Preventive) Central Excise Collectorate, Chandigarh, Shri Kishan Singh Inspector, Customs and Excise conducted the search of the house of the petitioner in the presence of two witnesses. He prepared the Panchnama (Ex. P-1). On that very day, the statement of S. Ram Singh, petitioner No. 2 was recorded. On 18th February, 1975, the Deputy Collector of the Central Excise issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the said 633 grams of gold ornaments be not confiscated u/s 71 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 and a penalty be imposed for the contravention of Section 6 (2), 16 (7) and 27(7)(b) of the Gold Control Act, 1968. The petitioner sent the reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner only succeeded in the reduction of the amount of redemption from Rs. 10000/- to Rs. 7500/- and the penalty from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 3000/-. It was only thereafter that the petitioner discovered that the Assistant Collector had no authority to issue the search warrant and the Deputy Collector was not competent to pass the adjudication order. 5.The respondents' defence as disclosed in the counter is that in accordance with notification No. S.O. No. 3118, the Central Government has empowered every Gold Control Officer of and above the rank of Superintendent of Central Excise, to enter and search or to authorise any officer of Government to enter and search any premises, vaults, lockers or any other places whether above or below ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y other place whether above or below ground or may himself do so. 7.The cumulative effect of the various provisions of this Act goes to show that the Central Government by a notification can appoint any person to be a gold control officer for the purposes of carrying out search but not an officer below the rank of Superintendent of Central Excise. 8.In this case, in pursuance of an information, the preventive staff of the Customs Collectorate searched the residential premises of petitioner No. 2 Shri Ram Singh at Patiala on 27-9-1974 under the authority of the search warrant issued by the Assistant Collector. As a result of this search, 43 pieces of gold ornaments weighing 633 grams valued at Rs. 33,000/- were recovered. The raid was co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of the appointment of Gold Control Officers (Annexure R/X). This notification No. S.0. 2319 dated 29th June, 1968 reads as under :- "In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) and (7) of Section 4 of the Gold Control Ordinance, 1968, the Central Government hereby appoints all officers of Central Excise, of and above the rank of sub-inspectors and all officers of customs, of and above the rank of preventive officers, as Gold Control officers and specifies that every gold control officer shall, subject to such limitations, restrictions and conditions as had been imposed by or under Part XII-A of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, exercise the powers and discharge the functions which were exercised or discharged under that part b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legate his powers to the Inspector and if at all he was authorised, then subject to which limitations, restrictions and conditions. Even this notification, sought to be brought on record, by the supplementary affidavit is of no help to the respondent. The fact remains that on this record the respondents have failed to place any material to justify the authority of the Assistant Collector to issue search warrant and to have it carried out by his subordinate on 27th September, 1974. 10.On the second aspect also, the petitioners have a case. The value of the seized gold ornaments has been asssessed at Rs. 33000/-. This is clear from Panchnama (Annexure P-1) and the statement of Ram Singh (Annexure P-2). The show cause notice, P-3, dated 21st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his notification, the Dy. Collector had the jurisdiction to adjudicate or confiscate the gold the value of which was not more than Rs. 25000/-. In the present case, admittedly the value of the gold ornaments taken into possession at the time of the search was assessed at Rs. 33,000/-. Thus, the Dy. Collector had no jurisdiction to pass the order of confiscation or impose the personal penalty on petitioner No. 2. 12.On both these counts, the respondents have failed to justify the search, seizure, the confiscation of the gold ornaments and imposition of penalty. 13.Before parting with this case, I have no hesitation to express the helplessness of the Court to arrive at a correct conclusion even if it sincerely tries to do so. It is not di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
