9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against order imposing redemption fine and penalty under Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Detailed Analysis: 1. Alleged Violation of Section 55 - Non-Accountal: The appellant argued that the essence of the charge against him was non-accountal under Section 55 of the Act and contended that prescribed forms GS 11 and GS 12 do not apply when gold and ornaments are not kept for sale. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court ruling to support this argument. However, the Tribunal found the appellant's statements to be confessional and inculpatory, indicating ownership of the unaccounted gold and ornaments. The Tribunal emphasized that the forms prescribed under Section 55 are relevant when gold is found in licensed premises, as in this case. The appellant's explanation that the items belonged to his relatives was deemed unconvincing, and the Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument based on the Supreme Court ruling cited. 2. Retraction of Statements and Additional Evidence: The appellant's counsel argued that the statements were retracted due to the appellant's illness and that additional evidence accepted by other authorities should be considered. However, the Tribunal found the retraction belated and unexplained, casting doubt on its credibility. The appellant's medical certificate was also scrutinized, revealing inconsistencies in the timeline of events. The Tribunal dismissed the relevance of the additional evidence accepted by other authorities, stating that setting up ownership in others after seizure lacked credibility in this case. 3. Recovery of Chits and Corroboration: The recovery of 18 chits from the appellant's shop, even if unrelated to the seized items, indicated unaccounted transactions in gold. The Tribunal highlighted that this circumstance was not convincingly explained by the appellant, leading to an adverse inference against him. The appellant's argument that the authorities were not authorized to record statements after office hours was rejected as legally baseless and impractical. 4. Reduction of Fine and Penalty: Despite upholding the impugned order, the Tribunal considered the appellant's clean record and the purity of the seized items. Consequently, the fine in lieu of confiscation was reduced to Rs. 35,000, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000. The appeal was dismissed except for the mentioned modifications, taking into account the circumstances and the appellant's history. This detailed analysis of the judgment comprehensively covers the issues raised, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning and conclusions in each aspect of the case.
|
