9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
(i) Whether the appellant is a dealer in gold and whether he has contravened the provisions of Section 27(7)(b) of the Gold Control Act and Section 55 of the Gold Control Act. (ii) Whether alternatively, the appellant had contravened Section 27(1) of the Gold Control Act by dealing in business of gold ornaments without a license. (iii) Whether there is a violation of principles of natural justice in not allowing the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses and whether the proceedings are vitiated. (iv) Whether the imposition of penalty to the extent of Rs. 30,000.00 and confiscation of gold are in accordance with law. Detailed Analysis: Point No. (i): The tribunal found that it was not established that the appellant is a dealer in gold and has contravened Section 27(7)(b) and Section 55 of the Gold Control Act. The appellant's father held the gold dealer license No. 1/69, and the appellant was not a partner in his father's firm. The appellant provided affidavits from his father, wife, and other relations stating that the gold ornaments belonged to them and were given to the appellant to mortgage for raising funds for a new business. The Collector's own findings in para 14 of his order acknowledged that the appellant was not a licensed gold dealer. The initial statement by the appellant claiming he was a licensed dealer, which was later retracted, could not form the basis for concluding he was a dealer. Thus, the tribunal held that the appellant did not contravene Section 27(7)(b) and Section 55 of the Gold Control Act. Point No. (ii): The tribunal noted that there was no allegation in the show cause notice that the appellant was dealing in gold ornaments without a valid license, thus not violating Section 27(1) of the Gold Control Act. The show cause notice only alleged violations of Sections 27(7)(b) and 55. The tribunal cited previous decisions, emphasizing that a single transaction does not constitute carrying on a business. The tribunal concluded that the appellant's statement about intending to sell the ornaments was insufficient to prove he was conducting business in gold without further evidence of previous transactions. Therefore, the contravention of Section 27(1) and Section 55 was not established, and the gold could not be confiscated on this count. Point No. (iii): The tribunal found a violation of principles of natural justice as the appellant was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and the seizing officer. The panchnama, which was crucial to the prosecution, was not prepared in the appellant's presence, and the witnesses did not specifically mention the appellant's name. The appellant's request to cross-examine these witnesses was denied. Moreover, the show cause notice did not mention the contravention of Section 27(1), depriving the appellant of the opportunity to defend himself on this point. The tribunal cited several decisions supporting the requirement for cross-examination and proper notice to uphold natural justice. The affidavits provided by the appellant's wife and relations, who claimed ownership of the gold, were not contested through proper show cause notices to them. Consequently, the confiscation of the gold was deemed unlawful. Point No. (iv): Given the findings on Points (i), (ii), and (iii), the tribunal concluded that the impugned order was liable to be set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the confiscation of the gold, along with the imposition of a redemption fine of Rs. one lakh and a penalty of Rs. 30,000/-, was set aside. The gold was ordered to be released in favor of the appellant. Conclusion: The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the confiscation of gold and the penalties imposed. The findings highlighted the lack of evidence to prove the appellant was a gold dealer, the absence of allegations in the show cause notice regarding Section 27(1), and the violation of natural justice principles due to the denial of cross-examination and proper notice.
|
