1982 (8) TMI 58 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Central Excise authorities to seize and confiscate gold KADAS.
2. Allegation of improper consideration of evidence by the Assistant Collector.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice in the proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash orders by Central Excise authorities and the Union Government for seizing and confiscating two gold KADAS. The police initially seized the gold, later taken by the Central Excise authorities. The petitioner claimed the KADAS were ornaments, not primary gold, inherited from his father. The Assistant Collector adjudicated for confiscation and imposed a penalty, upheld in appeal and revision. The petitioner argued the seizure was illegal as the KADAS were ornaments. The respondents contended the adjudicating authority had the power to decide if the gold constituted primary gold. The Court clarified the definition of primary gold and the authority's jurisdiction to determine its nature, dismissing the petitioner's claim regarding the seized article's classification.

2. The petitioner alleged the Assistant Collector's findings were perverse, not considering a witness's statement. The Court reviewed the evidence and noted the Assistant Collector's detailed examination of the seized articles, concluding they resembled primary gold, not ornaments. The appellate authority agreed, emphasizing the lack of finishing and suitability as ornaments. The Court found the authorities' conclusions reasonable and not perverse, rejecting the petitioner's argument on this ground.

3. The petitioner claimed a violation of natural justice, asserting a lack of opportunity to present evidence. However, the Court found that the petitioner had declined to produce defense witnesses during the proceedings. The Assistant Collector's statement about not needing defense witnesses was contextual, considering the petitioner's choice not to examine any. The Court highlighted that the petitioner did not raise objections regarding the denial of an opportunity to present evidence in subsequent stages of the case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the claim of a breach of natural justice, as the petitioner had not expressed grievances at any stage. The petition was ultimately dismissed, with costs denied, and the security deposit refunded to the petitioner.