1988 (5) TMI 288 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Department can change its stand during the appellate stage regarding the nature of seized goods.
2. Whether the respondents can be charged with contravention of the Gold Control Act based on the nature of the seized goods.
3. Whether the seized gold bangles should be considered as primary gold or ornaments.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The case involved the seizure of gold bangles by the Income Tax authorities, which were later transferred to the Central Excise Department. The Gold Control authorities alleged that the respondents possessed the gold bangles without proper declaration, leading to confiscation and imposition of fines and penalties. The Department's stand on the nature of the seized goods was crucial throughout the proceedings.

2. The Department contended that it had the right to re-examine whether the seized bangles were articles or primary gold, despite initially alleging them to be articles. The respondents argued that changing the Department's stand during the appellate stage would be prejudicial to them. The appellate authority's role in improving the Department's case and remanding the issue was also questioned by the respondents.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence and legal precedents to determine the nature of the seized gold bangles. The lower appellate authority found that the bangles were not primary gold but finished articles based on the evidence provided, including the appearance and design of the bangles. The Tribunal emphasized that penal proceedings required a clear charge, and changing the nature of the charge at the appellate stage was not permissible. The principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused in penal cases was reiterated, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding of the lower appellate authority's decision regarding the nature of the seized goods. The Tribunal concluded that in the absence of conclusive evidence proving the bangles were not ornaments, the benefit of doubt favored the respondents.