1987 (7) TMI 243 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Ownership of gold under seizure by multiple claimants.
2. Confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act.
3. Entitlement of a certified goldsmith to possess primary gold.
4. Discretion in imposing redemption fine.
5. Imposition of a personal penalty.
6. Reliance on retracted statement for confiscation and penalty.

Ownership of Gold:
The applicants contested the rejection of their claim that the gold under seizure belonged to 14 individuals who provided gold ornaments for new ones. The Tribunal assessed evidence and circumstances, concluding that the claim was not valid. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings and not a question of law, thus not warranting a reference.

Confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act:
The certified goldsmith applicant argued that possessing primary gold up to 300g was permissible under Section 42 of the Gold (Control) Act. However, Sections 40 and 41 impose conditions on a goldsmith's possession of primary gold, limiting it to specific circumstances. The Tribunal found the seized primary gold was not in accordance with the Act, making the confiscation legal. This was a factual finding and not a legal question for reference.

Discretion in Imposing Fine:
The Tribunal's discretion in setting a high redemption fine and a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000 was challenged. The Tribunal's exercise of discretion can be questioned only if it is arbitrary or perverse, which was not established in this case. The quantum of the fine or penalty does not automatically render the discretion arbitrary, hence not raising a legal question for reference.

Reliance on Retracted Statement:
The Tribunal's reliance on a retracted statement for confiscation and penalty was contested. The Tribunal provided reasons for accepting the statement, considering corroborative circumstances. As the statement was found to be voluntary and true, there was no legal question arising from this issue.

Conclusion:
After evaluating all aspects, the Tribunal found no legal questions in the impugned order that warranted a reference. Therefore, the Reference Applications were rejected based on the absence of legal issues meriting further consideration.