1987 (3) TMI 220 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner was served with the impugned notice u/s 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 within six months of the seizure of the gold ornaments.
2. Validity of service of notice on the petitioner's brother.
3. Whether affixation of notice in the office of the Collector of Central Excise constitutes effective service u/s 79.
4. Entitlement of the petitioner to the return of the seized ornaments.
5. The impact of not serving the notice within six months on the confiscation proceedings.

Summary:

1. Service of Notice u/s 79 within Six Months:
The petitioner, a licensed gold dealer, contended that no notice u/s 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was served within six months of the seizure of gold ornaments on 22.4.1986. The court noted that the statute mandates the notice must be given within six months from the date of seizure, failing which the seized gold must be returned.

2. Validity of Service on Petitioner's Brother:
The respondents claimed the notice was served by refusal by the petitioner's brother, Subodh Khanna, and by affixation on the notice board. The petitioner argued that Subodh Khanna was neither his agent nor authorized to accept the notice. The court found no evidence proving Subodh Khanna was authorized to receive notices on behalf of the petitioner, thus invalidating the service.

3. Affixation of Notice in the Office:
The court held that affixation of the notice on the notice board of the Gold Control Officer's office could only be resorted to if it was not feasible to serve the notice by tendering it or by registered post. The attempt to serve the notice was made only on the last day, which was insufficient to justify affixation as an alternative mode of service.

4. Entitlement to Return of Seized Ornaments:
The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the return of the seized ornaments as the notice was not served within the prescribed period of six months. The respondents were directed to return the ornaments seized from the petitioner's possession on 22-4-1986 forthwith.

5. Impact on Confiscation Proceedings:
The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the grounds for the notice u/s 79, as the petitioner's objections were pending consideration. It was noted that failure to serve the notice within six months does not automatically invalidate the confiscation proceedings, but the petitioner could challenge this in appeal or further legal proceedings.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to return the seized ornaments to the petitioner. The petitioner was also entitled to costs.