1986 (11) TMI 183 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure and confiscation of gold under the Gold Control Act.
2. Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. l7/IND/Gold/85.
3. Interpretation of Section 71 of the Gold Control Act regarding confiscation.
4. Reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Seizure and confiscation of gold under the Gold Control Act
The case involved a seizure of primary gold and gold ornaments from the residential premises of the appellants for contravention of Section 8 and Section 16(1) of the Gold Control Act. The seized gold was confiscated, and a fine was imposed. The appellants challenged the order, leading to an appeal.

Issue 2: Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. l7/IND/Gold/85
The appeal was directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. l7/IND/Gold/85 dated 24-7-1985 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. The Collector partially allowed the appeal by modifying the original order, releasing some of the gold ornaments and reducing the redemption fine.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 71 of the Gold Control Act regarding confiscation
The main contention revolved around the interpretation of Section 71 of the Gold Control Act, which provides for the confiscation of gold along with any package, covering, or receptacle in which such gold is found. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) set aside the confiscation of certain gold ornaments found in a red bag, stating they were kept separately. However, the Member (J) disagreed, emphasizing that the Act allows for the confiscation of any package containing the gold. The legal position was clarified, and the impugned order of confiscation was upheld.

Issue 4: Reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty
The appellants argued that the redemption fine and personal penalty were excessive. The Member (J) noted that the redemption fine was appropriate considering the quantity of contraband gold and ornaments. However, the personal penalty imposed on one of the appellants was reduced to Rs. 500/- due to the nature of her involvement.

In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed with the impugned order confirmed, but with a reduction in the personal penalty. The Cross Objections were also disposed of accordingly.