9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. 2. Application of Section 73 - Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. 3. Interpretation of Section 42 - Limit on primary gold for certified goldsmiths. 4. Proviso to Section 72(2) - Confiscation of gold belonging to third parties. 5. Compliance with the time limit under Section 79 for issuing show cause notice. 6. Effect of the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 on ongoing proceedings. Analysis: 1. The judgment dealt with the confiscation of primary gold under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The petitioners were found in possession of gold, leading to confiscation and imposition of a penalty by the Collector of Central Excise. The petitioners' explanations regarding the origin and purpose of the gold were deemed audacious by the authorities, resulting in the dismissal of their appeals and revision petitions. 2. The first issue raised was the non-availability of the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 73 of the Act. The court clarified that granting such an option is discretionary and not mandatory, hence not a basis for nullifying the impugned orders. 3. The interpretation of Section 42 regarding the possession limit of primary gold for certified goldsmiths was also discussed. The court emphasized that the possession limit of 300 grams is absolute, and exceeding this limit warrants confiscation of the entire quantity, rejecting the argument for partial release. 4. The proviso to Section 72(2) was analyzed concerning the confiscation of gold belonging to third parties. The court held that the proviso aims to protect innocent third parties, but in this case, the owners of the melted jewelry were aware of its conversion into gold, thus disallowing the petitioners from evading confiscation. 5. Compliance with the time limit under Section 79 for issuing a show cause notice was scrutinized. The court determined that the six-month period for notice issuance commences from the date of seizure by the Central Excise authorities, not from the initial police seizure, ensuring the notice in this case was timely. 6. The impact of the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 on ongoing proceedings was also addressed. The court ruled that the repeal did not invalidate prior proceedings conducted under the Act, upholding the validity of the impugned orders despite the Act's subsequent abolition. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, directing each party to bear their own costs.
|
