1983 (12) TMI 60 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of gold ornaments and documents under the Gold Control Act, 1968.
2. Interpretation of Sections 64, 66, and 79 of the Act.
3. Retention of articles under Section 65 of the Act.
4. Issuance of notice under Section 79 of the Act within the prescribed period.
5. Claim for the return of seized articles under second proviso to Section 79 of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Seizure of gold ornaments and documents
The main point of contention is whether the gold ornaments and documents were seized under Section 66 of the Act on February 24, 1979, or on December 31, 1980. The Central Excise Preventive Party initially retained the articles under Section 65 of the Act following an assault by the petitioners during an enquiry. The articles were formally seized under Section 66 on December 31, 1980, after completion of the enquiry process.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Sections 64, 66, and 79
Section 64 allows for the retention of documents or things for a specified period during an enquiry. Section 66 provides the power to seize gold or relevant documents if a contravention of the Act is suspected. Section 79 mandates the issuance of a notice to the concerned party within a specific timeframe for adjudication or confiscation. The petitioners argued that a notice under Section 79 was not issued within six months of the seizure, entitling them to the return of the seized articles.

Issue 3: Retention under Section 65 of the Act
The articles were initially retained under Section 65 of the Act, allowing for a 15-day retention period without the Assistant Collector's approval. The approval for extended retention was obtained on March 6, 1979. The contention that the retention under Section 65 was invalid due to non-production of articles before the officers was dismissed, as the retention was deemed lawful.

Issue 4: Issuance of notice under Section 79
The notice under Section 79 was issued on April 14, 1981, within six months of the formal seizure under Section 66 on December 31, 1980. The petitioners' claim for the return of the articles under the second proviso to Section 79 was rejected based on the timeline of events and legal provisions.

Conclusion
The writ petition was dismissed as the court found that the seizure of the articles occurred under Section 66 on December 31, 1980, and the notice under Section 79 was issued within the prescribed period. The petitioners' claim for the return of the seized articles was not upheld, and no costs were awarded.