1979 (12) TMI 154 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment quashing notice under Gold (Control) Act, 1968 based on possession of gold sovereigns and gold rod without declaration. Interpretation of Sec. 16 and Sec. 8(1) of the Act. Jurisdiction of Gold Control Officer to issue notice. Relevance of facts in determining jurisdiction. Applicability of Bench decision on permissible limit of gold possession.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Calcutta High Court involved a challenge by the authorities under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 against a judgment quashing a notice issued under Sec. 79 of the Act. The respondent, a licensed gold dealer, was found in possession of gold sovereigns and a gold rod during a search by customs officers. The impugned notice was issued on the grounds of violation of Sec. 8(1) for not declaring possession of primary gold and failure to furnish a declaration under Sec. 16 for exceeding the permissible limit. However, no gold bearing foreign marks as alleged were recovered from the respondent's custody. The weight discrepancies in the notice were noted, raising questions about the accuracy of the information provided.

The High Court relied on a previous Bench decision to determine that no declaration was required as the total quantity of gold recovered did not exceed the limit specified in Sec. 16(5)(b) of the Act. The judgment emphasized that the gold in question belonged to the respondent's family and did not surpass the permissible threshold. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed based on this interpretation, leading to the authorities challenging this decision in the appeal.

The appellants argued that the respondent was obligated to make a declaration under Sec. 16, but refrained from pursuing this point due to the precedent set by the Bench decision. The jurisdiction of the Gold Control Officer to issue the notice was contested based on the possession of primary gold, specifically the gold rod, without a declaration. The Act's provisions regarding possession and acquisition of primary gold were scrutinized to determine the legality of the notice issued.

The Court highlighted the importance of factual accuracy in determining jurisdiction, noting that relevant facts, such as the origin of the gold rod in the respondent's possession, were crucial in assessing the authorities' right to issue the notice. It was emphasized that the Court's jurisdiction in writ proceedings is limited to examining the authorities' jurisdiction to issue notices, but factual elements, if admitted or not denied, can influence this assessment. The failure of the appellants to address pertinent facts led to the dismissal of the appeal, as the Court found that the authorities lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed with no order for costs, and all interim orders were vacated. The judgment underscored the significance of factual accuracy and adherence to legal provisions in the issuance of notices under the Gold (Control) Act, emphasizing the need for authorities to establish jurisdiction based on accurate and relevant information.