1988 (8) TMI 309 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of primary gold and gold ornaments
- Imposition of fine and penalty under the Gold Control Act, 1968
- Admissibility of statements recorded in a language not understood by the appellants
- Validity of inculpatory statement by one of the appellants
- Assessment of purity of gold ornaments
- Quantum of fine and penalty imposed
- Joint and several imposition of penalty on multiple appellants

Confiscation of Gold and Imposition of Fine:
The appeal challenged an order confiscating 28.200 grams of primary gold and imposing a fine in lieu of confiscation of 818.400 grams of gold ornaments and articles under the Gold Control Act, 1968. The appellants, pawnbroking license holders, were found in possession of the gold without a license. Despite the appellants' inability to provide a satisfactory explanation, seizure was effected. One appellant admitted to dealing in gold without a license. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the primary gold and reduced the fine from Rs. 32,000 to Rs. 10,000, considering the lower value of the ornaments.

Admissibility of Statements and Purity Assessment:
The appellants argued that statements recorded in a language they did not understand were inadmissible. However, the Tribunal found the statements legally tenable as they were recorded in Bengali. The purity of the gold ornaments, claimed to be 22 carats, was not disputed by the appellants. The Tribunal deemed reassessing the purity unnecessary since the appellants did not contest the purity. The plea to independently verify the purity during investigation was rejected, and the Tribunal concluded that the charges against the appellants were proven.

Imposition of Penalty:
The adjudicating authority had imposed a joint and several penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on both appellants. The Tribunal found this confusing in penal proceedings and modified the penalty, imposing a separate penalty of Rs. 15,000 on each appellant. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal with the mentioned penalty modifications.

This judgment highlights the enforcement of the Gold Control Act, the admissibility of statements, the assessment of gold purity, and the appropriate imposition of fines and penalties in cases of gold possession without a license.