1986 (10) TMI 141 - AT - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of gold coins under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
2. Interpretation of Section 16(5)(b) of the Act regarding declaration requirements for gold coins and ornaments.
3. Application of legal precedents from High Courts and CEGAT rulings on the interpretation of Section 16(5)(b).

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to the confiscation of 22 gold coins (sovereigns) weighing 172 gms and a penalty imposed under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) confirming the confiscation was challenged in the appeals. The appellant, Govinda Rao, received the gold coins as gifts but failed to declare them as required by law. The authorities seized the coins and ascertained their purity through a certified goldsmith. The legal issue revolves around the non-declaration of the gold coins and the applicability of the Act in this case.

2. The central issue involves the interpretation of Section 16(5)(b) of the Act regarding declaration requirements for gold coins and ornaments. The appellant argued that since he possessed 835 gms of gold ornaments along with the coins, the coins should not be subject to confiscation based on the total weight of articles and ornaments owned. The appellant's counsel cited legal precedents from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Madras High Court, and CEGAT rulings to support the argument that no declaration is necessary if the total weight of articles and ornaments owned is below 4,000 gms. The Departmental Representative contended that the weight limit under Section 16(5)(a) should be read into Section 16(5)(b) to avoid defeating the legislative intent.

3. The judgment extensively analyzed the interpretation of Section 16(5)(b) based on legal precedents. The Madras High Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Calcutta High Court, and CEGAT rulings established that no declaration is required under Section 16(5)(b) if the total weight of articles and ornaments owned by an individual does not exceed the prescribed limit. The judgment emphasized that the weight limit specified in Section 16(5)(a) should not be imported into Section 16(5)(b) to maintain the legislative intent. By applying the principles from these authoritative pronouncements, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not obligated to declare the gold coins under seizure as the total weight of articles and ornaments did not exceed the statutory limit. Consequently, the impugned order of confiscation was set aside for the appellant, while the appeals of other claimants were dismissed based on the same legal reasoning.