1987 (2) TMI 271 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Contravention of Sections 8 and 27 of the Gold Control Act - Seizure of gold ornaments without proper documentation.
2. Interpretation of Section 27 of the Gold Control Act - Whether the appellant intended to sell the gold nose pins.
3. Confiscation of goods under Section 71 of the Gold Control Act.
4. Imposition of penalty under Section 74 of the Gold Control Act.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the contravention of Sections 8 and 27 of the Gold Control Act due to the seizure of gold ornaments from the appellant without proper documentation. The Gold Control Officers found the appellant in possession of nose pins without any voucher or permit, leading to the confiscation of the ornaments under Section 66 of the Gold Control Act.

2. The lower appellate authority analyzed the intention of the appellant regarding the sale of the gold nose pins. It was argued that the appellant had not commenced business as a gold dealer, and therefore, Section 27 of the Gold Control Act would not be attracted. The authority set aside the original order based on the lack of evidence indicating an offer to sell the goods.

3. The Department appealed, contending that the quantity of nose pins indicated the appellant's intent to trade them. The definition of a "dealer" under Section 2(h) of the Gold Control Act was crucial in determining whether the appellant had initiated business activities. The Department argued that attempting to sell the goods constituted commencing business as a dealer.

4. The advocate for the respondent emphasized that Section 27 would only apply if there was an actual act of selling the nose pins. Merely possessing a large quantity of goods did not necessarily imply an attempt to sell. The advocate cited relevant case law to support the argument that selling gold was essential to constitute business under the Gold Control Act.

5. The Tribunal agreed with the lower appellate authority's findings, highlighting the distinction between intention and attempt in the commission of an offense. The Tribunal clarified that Section 27 required actual selling to establish business activities, not just an intention to sell. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the lack of evidence showing an attempt to contravene the Gold Control Act.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the interpretation of Section 27 of the Gold Control Act regarding the appellant's intention to sell gold nose pins. The decision emphasized the necessity of actual selling to constitute business activities under the Act, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.