1989 (6) TMI 179 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Conversion of contravention under different subsections of the Gold (Control) Act.
2. Acceptance of GS 13 form as evidence without corroborative evidence.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Conversion of contravention under different subsections of the Gold (Control) Act:
The case involved a raid on the business premises of the appellant where primary gold was found being refined without proper certification. The appellant contended that the gold belonged to certified goldsmiths, but the Tribunal found evidence supporting that the gold belonged to the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the confessional statement made by the appellant was voluntary and true, and no retraction was made. The Tribunal also noted that the GS 13 register maintained by certified goldsmiths does not automatically imply correctness and must be subject to inspection and verification. The Tribunal concluded that the conversion of contravention from one sub-section to another sub-section of the Gold (Control) Act was a question of law and referred it to the High Court for opinion.

Issue 2: Acceptance of GS 13 form as evidence without corroborative evidence:
The appellant argued that the entries in the GS 13 register of certified goldsmiths should be accepted as evidence without further corroboration. However, the Tribunal found that the entries in the GS 13 register were not conclusive evidence of ownership of the gold recovered. The Tribunal pointed out that the certified goldsmiths did not inform the authorities about the ownership of the gold seized, and there was a lack of supporting evidence or witnesses to substantiate the appellant's claim. The Tribunal held that the question of accepting GS 13 forms as evidence without corroboration was a question of fact rather than law, and therefore, not necessary to refer to the High Court for opinion.

In conclusion, the Tribunal referred the question of converting contravention under different subsections of the Gold (Control) Act to the High Court for opinion, while determining that the acceptance of GS 13 forms as evidence without corroborative evidence was a question of fact and did not require a reference to the High Court.