1987 (6) TMI 189 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 regarding the definition of "owner of the gold" or "other person concerned."
2. Whether successors can inherit property if the liability under Section 8(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 attached to their father.

Analysis:
1. The applicants sought clarification on whether a claimant of gold or their successors should be considered the owner of gold or fall under the term "other person concerned" as per Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The case involved seized gold claimed by the applicants as legal heirs of their deceased father. The adjudicating authority did not accept their claim, leading to the confiscation of the gold under Section 71 of the Act. The Tribunal, after reviewing the evidence and arguments, concluded that ownership of the gold was not established, thereby upholding the confiscation.

2. The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice was issued to the presumed owner of the seized goods, Shri Vijay Kumar, under Section 99 of the Act. Although the applicants claimed the gold as legal heirs of their father, the notice was not issued to them due to lack of satisfaction about their ownership. The Tribunal emphasized that the applicants were neither the owners of the gold nor fell under the category of "other person concerned." As the deceased father was not proven to be the owner of the gold, the question of inheritance did not arise. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Reference Applications seeking clarification on inheritance rights and upheld the confiscation of the gold.

3. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the provision under Section 73 of the Gold (Control) Act, which allows the adjudicating officer to impose a redemption fine if ownership of the confiscated gold is established. Since ownership was not proven in this case, the order to release the gold on payment of a fine was deemed contrary to the law. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Collector (Appeals)'s order and restored the decision of the Additional Collector, ultimately dismissing the appeal and cross-objection filed by the applicants. The Tribunal concluded that the applicants' request to refer questions to the High Court under Section 82B(1) of the Act was not applicable in this scenario, leading to the dismissal of the Reference Applications.