9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Contravention of Section 27(7)(b) of the Gold Control Act, 1968. 2. Contravention of Sections 36 and 55 of the Gold Control Act, 1968, and Rules 11(1) and 13(2)(e) of the Gold (Control) (Forms, Fees and Misc. Matters) Rules, 1968. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Contravention of Section 27(7)(b) of the Gold Control Act, 1968 The main issue here was whether M/s. Om Prakash Jewellers contravened Section 27(7)(b) by carrying on business outside the licensed premises. The Collector held that the license dealer must carry on business within the licensed premises and that the Act did not allow delegation of business functions to a salesman via a Power of Attorney. The Collector concluded that the Power of Attorney issued to Shri Sharma was invalid and thus, doing business on its strength was illegal, leading to the confiscation of gold ornaments weighing 4087.900 gms and a personal penalty on M/s. Om Prakash Jewellers. However, the Tribunal considered several circulars and letters issued by the Government of India, which allowed the facility of inter-state sales through traveling salesmen, subject to proper accountal in the relevant statutory records. The Tribunal noted that the Government had kept in abeyance the restrictions on inter-state sales pending the Supreme Court's decision. The Tribunal found that the Collector failed to consider these circulars and the Supreme Court's stay order. Therefore, the Tribunal held that M/s. Om Prakash Jewellers did not contravene Section 27(7)(b) and set aside the order of confiscation and the penalty. Issue 2: Contravention of Sections 36 and 55 of the Gold Control Act, 1968, and Rules 11(1) and 13(2)(e) of the Gold (Control) (Forms, Fees and Misc. Matters) Rules, 1968 For M/s. Rattan Lal Krishan Lal (Appeal No. 8/80): The Collector found that the appellants failed to provide correct net weight and description of gold ornaments weighing 125.800 gms in their vouchers, thus contravening Section 36 and Rule 13(2)(e). Consequently, the gold was ordered for confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of a fine. The Tribunal, however, noted that there was no discrepancy in the number of gold ornaments or their total weight. The contravention was of a minor nature, and there was no allegation of mala fide intent. The Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation and directed the release of the gold ornaments if not already released, and refund of the fine if paid. For M/s. Kartar Singh Amrik Singh (Appeal No. 9/80): The Collector found that the appellants failed to provide the correct description and weight of gold ornaments in their vouchers, thus contravening Section 36 and Rule 13(2)(e). Additionally, the GS-12 tour register did not contain entries of the vouchers, leading to a finding of contravention of Section 55. The Tribunal noted that the Act or Rules did not contemplate the maintenance of a GS-12 tour register. The Tribunal found the contravention to be minor and technical, without any mala fide intent. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation and the penalty. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed all three appeals, setting aside the orders of confiscation and penalties. It directed the release of the gold ornaments if not already released and the refund of fines and penalties paid by the appellants.
|
