1986 (8) TMI 260 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Contravention under Section 6(2) of the Gold Control Act, 1968.
2. Exoneration of the appellant in respect of the charge under Section 27 of the Gold Control Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Contravention under Section 6(2) of the Gold Control Act, 1968:
The case involved an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras confirming the charge of contravention under Section 6(2) of the Gold Control Act. The appellant's premises were visited by authorities who found unaccounted gold ornaments, leading to their seizure. The appellant claimed the ornaments were for sale, not part of the pawnbroking business. The Deputy Collector found the appellant guilty, but the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) exonerated the appellant of the charge under Section 27. The Tribunal analyzed the situation, noting that Section 6(2) applies to gold pledged with a pawnbroker, which was not the case here. As the ornaments were not pledged, the statutory obligations under Section 6(2) did not apply. Since the appellant was cleared of the charge under Section 27 and no appeal was made against it, the Tribunal held that the charge under Section 6(2) was not legally tenable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Issue 2: Exoneration of the appellant in respect of the charge under Section 27 of the Gold Control Act:
The lower appellate authority had exonerated the appellant of the charge under Section 27 of the Gold Control Act, stating that although the circumstances indicated the intent to do business, there was no evidence of actual sales before the seizure. The Tribunal acknowledged this exoneration and emphasized that since the appellant was cleared of the charge under Section 27 and no appeal was filed against it, the department could not now argue the charge's validity. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant could not be held liable under Section 27, and the impugned order was set aside based on this finding.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the charge under Section 6(2) was not applicable in the absence of ornaments being pledged with the appellant. With the appellant already exonerated of the charge under Section 27, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.