1979 (10) TMI 216 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to legality of show cause notice issued by Gold Control Administrator
2. Enhancement of penalty and redemption fine
3. Revisional powers of Gold Control Administrator
4. Vested right of appellant to redeem seized gold
5. Interpretation of Gold Control Rules pre and post amendment

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to legality of show cause notice
The appellant challenged the legality of the show cause notice issued by the Gold Control Administrator on July 26, 1968, proposing to enhance the penalty. The learned single judge upheld the legality of the notice, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

Issue 2: Enhancement of penalty and redemption fine
The Collector of Central Excise had imposed penalties and redemption fines on the appellant for violations of Gold Control Rules. Subsequently, the Gold Control Administrator issued a notice in 1968 to enhance the penalty and redemption fine. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging this enhancement, arguing against the legality of the revision.

Issue 3: Revisional powers of Gold Control Administrator
The appellant contended that the Administrator, who issued the permit for possessing gold, should not review his own order using revisional powers. The court rejected this argument, distinguishing between administrative acts and quasi-judicial functions of the Administrator.

Issue 4: Vested right of appellant to redeem seized gold
The appellant claimed a vested right to redeem seized gold upon payment of the penalty amount. However, the court clarified that the right accrued based on the law as it stood on the date of the Collector's order, subject to subsequent amendments and revisional powers.

Issue 5: Interpretation of Gold Control Rules pre and post amendment
The court analyzed the applicability of the Gold Control Rules pre and post the 1966 amendment, emphasizing that the Collector's order, subject to revision, did not create an absolute vested right immune to further orders. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no justification to interfere with the learned single judge's decision.