1988 (4) TMI 174 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against orders under Gold (Control) Act and Customs Act; Petitioner accused of abetting illegal activities of brother; Cancellation of Gold Dealer's Licence.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a petition challenging orders passed against the petitioner under the Gold (Control) Act and the Customs Act, alleging abetment of illegal activities by the petitioner's brother. The petitioner, a goldsmith, left his shop in Bombay under his brother's care while he visited his sick mother in Goa. Upon his return, he discovered gold bars with foreign markings had been found in a raid on his shop. Show cause notices were issued to the brother and another individual, followed by the petitioner being required to give a statement. The authorities considered the petitioner's absence as facilitating the offense, leading to penalties imposed under both Acts.

The petitioner's explanation that he was unaware of the gold bars being secreted in his shop during his absence was rejected by the Additional Collector of Customs. Appeals to the Gold Control Administrator and a revision application to the Central Government were unsuccessful. However, in criminal proceedings under the Customs Act, the petitioner was acquitted, and the fine imposed was overturned on appeal by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Despite being found not guilty in criminal proceedings, the Gold Control Administrator held the petitioner accountable for abetting the offense.

The petitioner challenged the authorities' view under the Gold (Control) Act, arguing that the authorities misinterpreted his statement, leading to erroneous conclusions. The court agreed with the petitioner's argument, emphasizing the importance of concepts like benefit of doubt and burden of proof in penal proceedings. The court found the authorities' approach flawed and set aside the order canceling the petitioner's Gold Dealer's Licence, ruling in favor of the petitioner.

In conclusion, the court granted the petition, setting aside the order canceling the petitioner's Gold Dealer's Licence. No costs were awarded in the matter.