1986 (8) TMI 230 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of gold ornaments under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act.
3. Jurisdiction and evidentiary issues concerning the "Bahi" entries.
4. Proper maintenance and entry in statutory records under Section 55 and Rule 11 of the Gold Control (Forms, Fees and Misc. Matters) Rules, 1968.
5. Consolidated penalty for multiple contraventions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Gold Ornaments under Section 71:
The appellants argued that the Tribunal could not legally order the confiscation of 258.5 grams of gold ornaments, which were properly acquired. They contended that the gold was fully explained and accounted for, thus no offense under Section 55 could be deemed committed. The Tribunal found that the appellants had contravened Section 55 by not making timely entries in the GS 12 (Local) Register for 218 grams of gold ornaments. The Tribunal clarified that Section 55 mandates immediate entry of transactions in the statutory accounts. Since this requirement was not met, the gold ornaments were liable to confiscation under Section 71.

2. Imposition of Penalty under Section 74:
The appellants challenged the imposition of penalties, arguing that no penalty could be imposed when the gold was accounted for. The Tribunal held that the contravention of Section 55 and Rule 13 was established, making the gold ornaments liable to confiscation and the appellants liable to penalties under Section 74. The Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 50,000, considering the nature and gravity of the offense and the facts of the case.

3. Jurisdiction and Evidentiary Issues Concerning the "Bahi" Entries:
The appellants contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to rely on the "Bahi" entries without corroborative evidence. They argued that the entries related to silver transactions, not gold. The Tribunal found that the "Bahi" was maintained by the appellants and was seized from their residence. The particulars recorded in the "Bahi" indicated transactions of gold ornaments. The Tribunal concluded that no further corroborative evidence was necessary and that the findings based on the "Bahi" were within its jurisdiction. The Tribunal emphasized that the scope of the reference application is limited to questions of law, not factual determinations.

4. Proper Maintenance and Entry in Statutory Records:
The appellants argued that non-entry in the GS 12 (Local) Register could be a violation of Rule 11, not Rule 13, and that the Tribunal did not consider Rule 11. The Tribunal clarified that GS 12 registers must be maintained as per Section 55 and Rule 11. The mis-citation of Rule 13 did not prejudice the appellants, as the requirement to maintain GS 12 registers was clearly brought out in the Show Cause Notice and adjudication orders. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' failure to make timely entries in the GS 12 (Local) Register constituted a violation of Section 55, justifying the confiscation and penalties.

5. Consolidated Penalty for Multiple Contraventions:
The appellants challenged the imposition of a consolidated penalty for violations of multiple sections and rules. The Tribunal held that Section 74 does not require separate penalties for each contravention. The adjudicating authority can impose a consolidated penalty after considering the nature of the contravention, the gravity of the offense, and the facts of the case. The Tribunal had already reduced the penalty from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 50,000, taking a judicious view of the circumstances.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the reference application, holding that none of the points raised warranted a reference to the High Court under Section 82-B of the Gold (Control) Act. The Tribunal found that the appellants had contravened the provisions of the Act and Rules, justifying the confiscation of gold ornaments and the imposition of penalties. The Tribunal's findings were based on a proper appreciation of the facts and evidence, and no question of law arose for reference to the High Court.

← Previous Next →