1986 (9) TMI 284 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order imposing fine and penalty for possession of undeclared gold ornaments.
- Interpretation of Section 16(5) and 16(6) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 regarding the definition of "family" for possession limits.
- Determination of whether the major son of the appellant constitutes a separate family for possession limits.
- Consideration of Wealth Tax Returns as evidence of family structure for possession limits.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against an order imposing a fine and penalty for the possession of undeclared gold ornaments exceeding the statutory limit. The appellant challenged the order, arguing that his major son and wife should be considered a separate family under Section 16(6) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, thus entitling them to possess ornaments up to the limit without declaration. The appellant's counsel contended that the adjudicating authority erred in clubbing the appellant's family with that of his major son. The counsel also presented the Wealth Tax Returns of the parties to demonstrate that the appellant and his major son did not constitute members of an undivided Hindu Joint family.

In response, the learned DR argued that there was no evidence to establish the major son as a separate family entity, asserting that the appellant, as the head of the undivided Hindu family, had overall control and custody of the seized ornaments. The DR contended that the non-declaration of the excess quantity of ornaments by the appellant constituted a contravention under Section 16(1) of the Act.

Upon consideration of the submissions, the judge analyzed Section 16(1) and 16(6) of the Act, emphasizing that a family, as defined under the statute, consists of the husband, wife, and one or more minor children, excluding any other individuals. The judge concluded that the appellant's major son and his wife constituted a separate family within the statutory definition, each entitled to possess 4000 gms without declaration. The judge noted that the separate Wealth Tax Returns filed by the appellant and his major son further supported the distinct family structures. Consequently, the judge set aside the impugned order, citing the adjudicating authority's incorrect reasoning and failure to consider the statutory definition of family under Section 16(6) of the Act.

In summary, the judgment clarifies the interpretation of the statutory provisions regarding possession limits for gold ornaments and highlights the importance of adhering to the specific definitions outlined in the law to determine family entities for such limits.