1987 (12) TMI 224 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of gold from licensed premises of a gold dealer.
2. Confiscation of seized gold and imposition of penalties.
3. Appeal against the order of confiscation and penalties.
4. Review power exercised by the Government of India.
5. Allegations and defense regarding ownership of seized gold.
6. Acceptance of defense by the Department.
7. Justification of penalty reduction by the Appellate Collector.

Analysis:
1. The appeal stemmed from the seizure of 362.800 gms. of gold from the licensed premises of a gold dealer by Gold Control Officers. The gold included primary gold weighing 272.150 gms. Statements were recorded from individuals involved, indicating the origin and ownership of the seized gold.

2. Following an investigation, show cause notices were issued to the gold dealer, his brother, a certified goldsmith, and another individual claiming ownership of the gold. The Addl. Collector ordered confiscation of the gold with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and imposed a personal penalty on the gold dealer.

3. The aggrieved parties filed appeals against the confiscation and penalties. The Appellate Collector set aside the confiscation and reduced the penalty imposed on the gold dealer, which led to further review proceedings initiated by the Government of India.

4. The Government exercised its review power under the Gold (Control) Act, transferring the review show cause notice to the Tribunal for consideration as an appeal, questioning the decision of the Appellate Collector.

5. Arguments were presented regarding the ownership of the seized gold, with the defense claiming it belonged to a specific individual. The defense highlighted discrepancies in statements and lack of evidence supporting the ownership claim, challenging the basis of the confiscation.

6. The Department's acceptance of the defense's version based on statements and show cause notices indicated a lack of grounds for considering the defense as an afterthought. This acceptance aligned with the discrepancies found in the statements, supporting the decision to set aside the confiscation.

7. The justification for the Appellate Collector's reduction of the penalty from Rs. 9000 to Rs. 500 was examined, considering the technical nature of the offense and the acceptance of the defense's version regarding the purpose of bringing the gold for testing. The decision to reduce the penalty was deemed reasonable in the circumstances.

In conclusion, the appeal was rejected based on the analysis of the ownership claims, acceptance of defense by the Department, and the justification for penalty reduction provided by the Appellate Collector.