9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the initial investment in Vasavi and Co. 2. Legality of the gold jewellery weighing 1,170.500 gms. 3. Adequacy of the opportunity provided to the appellant for defense. 4. Delay in proceedings by the Competent Authority. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the initial investment in Vasavi and Co.: The appellant's initial investment in Vasavi and Co. was scrutinized by the Competent Authority. The appellant provided a detailed explanation supported by documentary evidence, including purchase vouchers for gold jewellery and silver items, which were stamped by the Superintendent of Central Excise. The Competent Authority accepted the authenticity of these documents but questioned whether the jewellery sold was legally acquired. Despite the appellant's detailed explanation and the submission of purchase vouchers, the Competent Authority concluded that the appellant failed to prove the lawful acquisition of the jewellery. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had sufficiently demonstrated the existence of family jewellery through a declaration made to the Central Excise authorities on June 30, 1969, and had shown the correlation of the investments made to the said sales. The Tribunal held that the forfeiture of the credit balance in Vasavi and Co. was not sustainable. 2. Legality of the gold jewellery weighing 1,170.500 gms.: The second issue involved the forfeiture of gold jewellery weighing 1,170.500 gms., declared before the Central Excise authorities on June 30, 1969. The Competent Authority held that the appellant failed to explain the source of the jewellery and its lawful acquisition. The Tribunal noted that despite the declaration, the jewellery was not seized during raids in 1967 and 1975, indicating that the authorities did not suspect it to be illegally acquired. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had provided prompt and detailed information and that the Competent Authority had not utilized its powers under sections 15 and 16 of the Act to verify the facts further. The Tribunal concluded that the forfeiture of the gold jewellery was not justified on the facts of the case. 3. Adequacy of the opportunity provided to the appellant for defense: The appellant contended that the Competent Authority failed to afford a proper opportunity for defense after the proceedings were resumed following the Supreme Court judgment. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had been prompt in supplying information and had not been wanting in this regard. The Tribunal found that the Competent Authority did not adequately utilize its powers to summon witnesses or seek additional information, which could have clarified any doubts. 4. Delay in proceedings by the Competent Authority: The Tribunal noted significant delays in the proceedings initiated by the Competent Authority. The detention order under the COFEPOSA Act was passed on October 26, 1975, but the decision to initiate proceedings under the Act was taken only in 1988, with the first show-cause notice issued on December 15, 1988. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant had made the declaration regarding the possession of gold jewellery as far back as June 30, 1969, and that the delay in initiating proceedings was unreasonable. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where inordinate delays led to the quashing of forfeiture orders. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the initial investment in Vasavi and Co. was duly explained and that the forfeiture of the credit balance and subsequent accretions was not sustainable. Similarly, the forfeiture of the gold jewellery weighing 1,170.500 gms. was also not justified. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, directing that a copy of the order be forwarded to all Competent Authorities for their information and guidance.
|
