1995 (8) TMI 78 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Additional Collector to pass the order of confiscation and penalty.
2. Direction to return the seized gold to respondent-1.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector of Central Excise to pass an order of confiscation and penalty under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Respondent-1 was found carrying primary gold bars in a taxi, leading to the seizure of the gold. The Additional Collector held that respondent-1 was carrying the gold and imposed penalties on both respondents. However, the High Court held that the Additional Collector did not have the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as he was not conferred with the powers of a Gold (Control) Officer under the Act. The court referred to relevant notifications and concluded that the Additional Collector lost jurisdiction after June 6, 1984, thereby quashing the order passed by the Additional Collector.

2. The High Court also addressed the direction to return the seized gold to respondent-1. The court noted that the respondents did not seek this relief in their writ petitions challenging the order of the Additional Collector. Despite respondent-1 denying ownership or possession of the gold during adjudication, the Single Judge directed the return of the gold. The court found merit in the argument that such a direction was not justified since it was not sought by the respondents. The court emphasized that respondent-1 cannot claim ownership or possession of the gold after denying it during the proceedings. Additionally, the court rejected the argument that the gold should be returned based on the quashing of the show cause notice, as respondent-1 never claimed ownership or possession of the gold at any stage.

In conclusion, the High Court partly allowed the appeal by upholding the finding that the Additional Collector lacked jurisdiction to pass the order of confiscation and penalty. The direction to return the gold to respondent-1 was set aside. The court did not order any costs in the circumstances of the case.