Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1985 (7) TMI 225 - AT - Central ExciseGold -Declaration of gold owned possessed held etc. by licensed dealer liable to contravention
Issues:
- Appeal against the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, confirming findings of Deputy Collector of Central Excise and imposing penalties for contravention of various sections of the Act. Analysis: 1. The appellants, a father and son duo operating a gold dealership, were found with unaccounted gold ornaments during a surprise visit by authorities. The father admitted to purchasing the unaccounted ornaments for sale without declaration, leading to penalties and charges under different sections of the Act. 2. The appellants argued that certain ornaments belonged to the son's wife and a goldsmith, thus not requiring declaration. However, lack of evidence to support these claims weakened their defense. The failure to declare the seized ornaments as per law was a crucial point against the appellants. 3. The statement made by the father at the time of seizure, confessing to the unaccounted ornaments, held weight as it was not retracted for a significant period. The son's later retraction lacked explanation, further strengthening the initial confession's credibility. 4. The charges under Sections 38 and 55 were upheld as the appellants failed to file required returns and declarations for the gold in their possession, contravening the Act's provisions. The argument that the seized ornaments were not in their capacity as dealers was dismissed based on statutory requirements. 5. The judgment found the charges of contravention against the appellants to be proven. However, considering their clean record and the purity of the seized ornaments, the redemption fine and penalties were reduced significantly to Rs. 5,000, Rs. 500, Rs. 250, and Rs. 75 for different violations. 6. The appellants were directed to have their ornaments restored upon verification of the redemption fine payment. Any excess amounts paid by the appellants were to be refunded, ensuring fairness in the enforcement of penalties and fines. The appeals were dismissed with the specified modifications.
|