1988 (7) TMI 170 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold ornaments and sovereigns under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
2. Validity of the penalty imposed jointly on the appellants.
3. Assessment of fine and penalty under the Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged an order confiscating gold ornaments and sovereigns, imposing a fine, and penalty under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The appellants, a father and son, were found in possession of gold items without proper licensing. The son, a pawnbroker, admitted to dealing in gold business without a license, taking orders, and manufacturing ornaments. The authorities seized gold items and account books, leading to the legal proceedings. The appellants contested the confiscation, fine, and penalty, claiming lack of evidence and excessive punishment.

2. The appellants argued against the joint penalty imposed, claiming it was impermissible under the law. The Tribunal found the evidence supported individual penalties for contraventions under the Act. The appellants were found to have transacted in gold without a valid license, using a certified goldsmith as a front. The Tribunal set aside the joint penalty and imposed individual penalties of Rs. 50,000 on the son and Rs. 25,000 on the father based on the established contraventions.

3. In assessing the fine and penalty, the Tribunal considered the quantity and purity of the gold items seized, involvement of third parties' ornaments, and the appellants' unauthorized transactions. The fine was reduced to Rs. 30,000, and the appellants were directed to exercise redemption options within a specified period. The Tribunal emphasized the seriousness of the contraventions and the need for individual penalties based on the evidence presented. The appeals were dismissed with the modifications in fine and penalty.