1987 (11) TMI 192 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the lower appellate authority to remand an issue already decided by the adjudicating authority.
2. Validity of the exoneration of the appellant under specific sections of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
3. Confiscation and penalty for possession of primary gold under Section 8(1) of the Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the lower appellate authority to remand an issue already decided by the adjudicating authority

The appeal was against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, remanding the case to the original adjudicating authority for reconsideration. The appellant had been exonerated of a charge under Section 27(1) of the Act by the adjudicating authority. The lower appellate authority set aside the findings of the original authority and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. The appellant argued that since the issue of exoneration under Section 27(1) was not raised before the lower appellate authority, it had no jurisdiction to consider it suo motu. The appellate tribunal agreed, stating that the lower appellate authority did not have the jurisdiction to deal with an issue that was not pending before it. The tribunal highlighted that the department did not exercise its power of review under Section 82(2) of the Act. Therefore, the remand order was deemed not legally sustainable, and the finding of the lower appellate authority was set aside.

Issue 2: Validity of the exoneration of the appellant under specific sections of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968

The appellant was found guilty of charges under Section 6(2) and 8(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The lower appellate authority exonerated the appellant of the charge under Section 6(2) but found him guilty under Section 27(1) and remanded the case for reconsideration. However, the tribunal held that since the appellant had been exonerated under Section 27(1) by the original authority, the lower appellate authority had no jurisdiction to reconsider this issue. The tribunal also noted that the appellant had pleaded guilty under Section 8(1) for possession of primary gold. The tribunal confirmed the confiscation of the primary gold and imposed a penalty, modifying the fine amount for redemption of the gold.

Issue 3: Confiscation and penalty for possession of primary gold under Section 8(1) of the Act

The appellant pleaded guilty under Section 8(1) for possession of primary gold. The tribunal held that the primary gold was confiscable, and the appellant was liable for a penalty. The tribunal modified the fine amount for redemption of the gold and confirmed the penalty imposed by the authorities. The appellant was given the option to redeem the primary gold on payment of the revised fine amount. The tribunal dismissed the appeal with modifications related to the redemption of the primary gold and the penalty amount.

Overall, the tribunal set aside the remand order by the lower appellate authority regarding the exoneration under Section 27(1) and confirmed the findings related to the charges under Section 6(2) and 8(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

← Previous Next →