9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Can an appellant be placed, on the point of his guilt, in a position worse than before he came in appeal? 2. Did the Appellate Tribunal overstep its function by finding reasons for the adjudicating authority's failure to give explicit judgments and holding such judgments as implied or by reference? Issue 1: Can an appellant be placed, on the point of his guilt, in a position worse than before he came in appeal? The learned Advocate for the applicants formulated the first question: whether an appellant can be placed in a worse position regarding his guilt than before he came in appeal. The Tribunal's findings were based on the appreciation of evidence regarding the sustainability of the penalty imposed on the applicant. The Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority's finding of no mala fides was based on no evidence. The Tribunal inferred that the shortage of 67.400 gms of gold was due to a lack of bona fides on the part of the appellant, thus contravening Section 55 read with Rules 11 and 13 of the Gold Control Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the concept that an appellant should not be placed in a worse position than before he came in appeal relates to the quantum of liability or punishment. The Tribunal did not increase the penalty but found a lack of bona fides, which was a more unfavorable finding than that of the adjudicating authority. This raised a question of law about whether the Tribunal was legally competent to give such a finding. The Tribunal referred this question to the High Court of Delhi to determine if it was legally permissible for the Tribunal to make a finding of lack of bona fides when the original authority had found no mala fides. Issue 2: Did the Appellate Tribunal overstep its function by finding reasons for the adjudicating authority's failure to give explicit judgments and holding such judgments as implied or by reference? The second question formulated was whether the Tribunal overstepped its function by finding reasons for the adjudicating authority's failure to give explicit judgments and holding such judgments as implied or by reference. The learned Advocate argued that the charge in the Show Cause Notice was that the gold found short had been "unauthorisedly parted with," not that entries in accounts had not been properly made. The Tribunal inferred the unauthorised parting with gold from the non-accountal of the gold, which was a factual finding. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Meenakshi Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT, which clarified that findings of fact could be reviewed as questions of law only if there was no evidence to support them or if they were perverse. The Tribunal concluded that the finding of unauthorised parting with gold was an inference from the established fact of shortage, and thus, it was a question of fact, not law. The Tribunal referred the following questions to the High Court of Delhi: whether the Tribunal was legally competent to give a finding of lack of bona fides and, if not, whether the penalties would still be sustainable based on other findings for contravention of Section 55 read with Rules 11 and 13 of the Gold Control Act. Conclusion: The Tribunal referred two questions to the High Court of Delhi for determination: (a) Whether the Tribunal was legally competent to give a finding of lack of bona fides when the original authority had found no mala fides. (b) If the answer to the first question is negative, whether the penalties would still be sustainable based on other findings for contravention of Section 55 read with Rules 11 and 13 of the Gold Control Act. The Tribunal enclosed relevant documents, including the orders-in-original, orders-in-appeal, and reference applications, for the High Court's consideration.
|
