9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Imposition of fine and penalty under Gold (Control) Act, 1968 for possession of gold ornaments for sale without a license. - Interpretation of Section 27(1) of the Act regarding commencement of business as a dealer without a license. - Evaluation of evidence to establish contravention under Section 27(1) against the appellant. - Consideration of the quantity and purity of the gold ornaments in determining the penalty. - Modification of the fine and penalty imposed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad. Analysis: The appeal challenged an order imposing a fine and penalty under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 for possessing gold ornaments meant for sale without a license. The appellant was found in possession of new gold ornaments in trade quantities, leading to the belief that they were intended for sale illegally. The appellant argued that the charge under Section 27(1) required proof of commencing business as a dealer without a license. The appellant claimed the ornaments belonged to his family for sale, but the evidence suggested otherwise. The tribunal analyzed the definition of a "dealer" under the Act and concluded that possession of trade quantities of new gold ornaments indicated intent to sell, supporting the charge of contravention under Section 27(1). The tribunal considered the quantity and purity of the gold ornaments, noting that most items were not sold, and one item was merely attempted to be sold. The tribunal found that reducing the fine and penalty would serve the interests of justice. Therefore, the tribunal modified the fine to Rs. 50,000 and the penalty to Rs. 10,000, while dismissing the appeal in all other aspects. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence and the wide scope of the definition of a "dealer" under the Gold (Control) Act, emphasizing the need to establish contravention for possession of gold ornaments for sale without a license.
|
