1985 (6) TMI 180 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Contravention of Sections 8(1), 27, 41, 42, and 55 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
2. Validity of the confessional statement of appellant Ramesh Babu.
3. Legal effect of an acquittal by a criminal court on adjudication proceedings.
4. Appropriateness of penalties imposed on the appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Contravention of Sections 8(1), 27, 41, 42, and 55 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968:
The Tribunal found that appellant Ramesh Babu was in possession of a significant quantity of primary gold, which he admitted to transporting for consideration. The possession exceeded the statutory limits prescribed under Section 42, making the charges under Sections 8(1) and 42 valid. The learned Departmental Representative conceded that the charges under Sections 16, 17, and 55 were not substantiated and did not press them. However, the Tribunal upheld the charges under Sections 8(1), 27, and 42 against Ramesh Babu and under Sections 8(1), 11, 17, and 27 against appellants C.P. Ramakrishnan and C.P. Srinath. Appellants Sarathy and Venkatesan were found guilty of contravening Sections 8(1) and 27.

2. Validity of the Confessional Statement of Appellant Ramesh Babu:
The Tribunal rejected the contention that Ramesh Babu's confessional statement was extorted under coercion. The statement was found to be voluntary and true, containing detailed information that could not have been fabricated. The Tribunal noted that Ramesh Babu did not complain of any coercion when taken for remand and did not retract his statement immediately. The statutory presumption under Section 99 of the Act that the person in possession of primary gold is the owner was not dispelled by the appellants.

3. Legal Effect of an Acquittal by a Criminal Court on Adjudication Proceedings:
The Tribunal held that an acquittal in a criminal prosecution does not automatically absolve the accused of liabilities under the Gold (Control) Act in adjudication proceedings. The Tribunal cited several rulings, including a Division Bench of the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court, to support the view that an order of confiscation by a competent adjudicating authority remains valid even after an acquittal. The Tribunal noted that the criminal court's acquittal was based on a misinterpretation of the applicability of the charges and a lack of evidence, which does not affect the adjudication proceedings.

4. Appropriateness of Penalties Imposed on the Appellants:
The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the primary gold and the redemption fine of Rs. 1,25,000 imposed on Ramesh Babu. However, it found the penalty of Rs. 50,000 on Ramesh Babu to be excessive, considering he acted merely as a carrier. The Tribunal reduced the penalty on Ramesh Babu to Rs. 10,000, aligning it with the penalties imposed on the other appellants, who were instrumental in the illegal transactions. The penalties on appellants Ramakrishnan, Srinath, Sarathy, and Venkatesan were confirmed.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed except for the reduction in the penalty on appellant Ramesh Babu from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the primary gold and the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority, with the noted adjustment.