1987 (6) TMI 188 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold ornaments under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
2. Interpretation of Section 16 of the Act regarding possession of ornaments by a family.
3. Determination of possession and declaration obligations under the Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was against an order confiscating gold ornaments under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras. The appellant was found in possession of excess gold ornaments without declaration, leading to seizure and subsequent legal proceedings. The order imposed fines and penalties under various sections of the Act. The appellant contested the order, leading to the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras.

2. The appellant argued that as per Section 16(5) of the Act, a family can possess 4000 gms of ornaments without declaration, with a specific definition of "family" under Section 16(6). The appellant claimed that his family, including his major son and daughters, constituted separate units entitled to possession without the need for individual declarations. Citing a previous ruling, the appellant challenged the adjudicating authority's findings and emphasized that the ornaments belonged to various family members, not solely to the appellant.

3. The Senior Departmental Representative contended that even if other family members had ownership of the ornaments, the appellant, having temporary custody, was obligated to declare the excess ornaments. However, the Tribunal analyzed the statutory provisions and factual circumstances. It noted that the Act defined a family narrowly and excluded other family members from the unit entitled to possession without declaration. The Tribunal emphasized that strict interpretation would render the Act unworkable and highlighted the practical implications of imposing declaration obligations on temporary possessors. Considering the factual errors in the adjudication and the shared ownership of ornaments among family members, the Tribunal concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish the appellant's exclusive possession of excess ornaments. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal based on the interpretation of the Act and the specific family structure involved in the case.