1986 (10) TMI 152 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of confiscation and penalty under Gold Control Act, 1968.
2. Lack of evidence in original order leading to appeal for non-deposit of penalty.
3. Seizure of bangles from appellant's possession without legal basis.
4. Failure to specify contravention in show cause notice.
5. Lack of evidence against appellant for contravention of Gold Control Act.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras challenged the order of confiscation and penalty imposed under the Gold Control Act, 1968. The impugned order by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was not based on merits but rejected the appellant's appeal due to non-deposit of the penalty. The Tribunal considered the lack of evidence against the appellant in the original order and decided to proceed with the appeal without requiring prior deposit of the penalty. The Tribunal noted the absence of any evidence supporting the confiscation of 2 pairs of bangles weighing 47.7 grams and the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 4,400 under the Act.

The incident leading to the case occurred when the authorities visited a jewelry shop and found the appellant in possession of the bangles in question. However, the appellant was penalized solely based on possession without any evidence of contravention under the Act. The adjudicating authority failed to provide any evidence or basis for the confiscation and penalty imposed. The appellant's consultant argued that no offense was specified against the appellant in the show cause notice, and there was a complete lack of evidence supporting the adjudicating authority's decision.

The Tribunal emphasized that the mere possession of the bangles did not constitute a contravention or offense under the Act. The seizure of the bangles was deemed unjustified and without legal basis as there was no indication of any contravention by the appellant. The show cause notice and the original order of adjudication did not specify the nature of the contravention or provide any evidence against the appellant. The adjudicating authority's reasoning for the confiscation and penalty was found to be unsubstantiated and lacking legal merit.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the original order of the adjudicating authority and allowed the appeal, concluding that the appellant had not contravened any provisions of the Gold Control Act based on the lack of evidence and legal basis for the confiscation and penalty. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of evidence and legal justification in imposing penalties and confiscations under the Act, ensuring fairness and justice in such proceedings.