9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of evidence under the Customs Act for proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act. 2. Ownership and financing of the confiscated gold. 3. Validity of the cancellation of the gold dealer license without proper notice. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Evidence under the Customs Act for Proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act: The appellant contended that statements recorded under the Customs Act cannot be used to bring charges under the Gold (Control) Act. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that statements recorded by a competent officer at the time of gold seizure are admissible in proceedings under both the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act. The Tribunal referenced the case of Deenanath Rajaram v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Belgaum, which held that statements recorded under either act are admissible even if inculpatory and confessional in nature. 2. Ownership and Financing of the Confiscated Gold: The appellant argued that there was no legal evidence proving his ownership or financing of the confiscated gold. The Tribunal noted that the primary evidence against the appellant was the retracted statement of Jitender Kumar Bhutani, who initially claimed the appellant gave him money to purchase the gold. However, Bhutani later retracted this statement, claiming he named the appellant out of enmity. The Tribunal observed that no corroborative evidence supported Bhutani's initial statement. Additionally, the appellant's business premises were searched immediately after the gold seizure, and nothing incriminating was found. The Tribunal emphasized that under Section 99 of the Gold (Control) Act, the person found in possession of the gold (Bhutani) is presumed to be the owner unless proven otherwise. Since the Department failed to rebut this presumption with evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant could not be held guilty based solely on Bhutani's retracted statement. 3. Validity of the Cancellation of the Gold Dealer License: The appellant argued that the cancellation of his gold dealer license was not proposed in the Show Cause Notice, nor was he given an opportunity to show cause against the cancellation. The Tribunal found this argument valid, noting that the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, provides a complete machinery for the cancellation of gold dealer licenses under Section 50. This section requires that no license shall be canceled without giving the holder a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. Since the appellant was not given such an opportunity, the Tribunal held that the cancellation of the license was not legally justified. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to prove the charges against the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order imposing the personal penalty and canceling the appellant's gold dealer license was set aside.
|
