1990 (4) TMI 171 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rectification of mistake apparent from the record under Section 81-A(2) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
2. Confiscation and redemption of gold ornaments weighing 254 gms, 438.300 gms, 13 gms, and Suhan weighing 20 gms.
3. Applicability of Allahabad High Court judgment in CCE, Allahabad v. Lala Kashi Nath Jewellers.
4. Inherent power of the Tribunal to rectify its own order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rectification of Mistake Apparent from the Record:
The Tribunal considered an application under Section 81-A(2) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, for rectifying a mistake apparent from the record in the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Tribunal. The applicants sought rectification concerning the confiscation of gold ornaments and the penalties imposed. The Tribunal acknowledged the need to ascertain whether it had omitted to consider submissions regarding the confiscability of gold ornaments received from dealers in Bangalore and Amritsar, covered by valid vouchers.

2. Confiscation and Redemption of Gold Ornaments:
The Tribunal initially confirmed the confiscation of five necklaces weighing 254 gms with an option to redeem on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 1000/-. For another quantity of ornaments weighing 438.300 gms, old ornaments weighing 13 gms, and Suhan weighing 20 gms, the Tribunal modified the absolute confiscation ordered by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, and gave the option to redeem on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 15,000/-. The applicants argued for the release of these ornaments, citing that they were covered by valid vouchers from gold dealers in Bangalore and Amritsar.

3. Applicability of Allahabad High Court Judgment:
The applicants cited the Allahabad High Court judgment in CCE, Allahabad v. Lala Kashi Nath Jewellers, which held that ornaments covered by valid vouchers should not be confiscated merely for non-accounting in statutory records. The Tribunal noted that the vouchers for the ornaments were verified and found genuine by the Central Excise authorities at Bangalore and Amritsar. The Tribunal recognized that it had not specifically considered this aspect in its previous order, which could have influenced the decision on confiscation.

4. Inherent Power of the Tribunal to Rectify Its Own Order:
The applicants argued that rectification of an apparent error would not amount to a review of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal agreed, referencing case law that supports the inherent power of a Judicial Tribunal to rectify palpable mistakes causing prejudice to an innocent party. The Tribunal concluded that rectification was justified in this case, as it had omitted to consider the Allahabad High Court judgment and the genuineness of the transactions covered by valid vouchers.

Final Order:
The Tribunal rectified its previous order, setting aside the confiscation of 254 gms and 438.300 gms of gold ornaments received from Bangalore and Amritsar, as the transactions were covered by valid vouchers. However, the confiscation of 13 gms of ornaments and 20 gms of Suhan was maintained, with the option to release on payment of a fine in lieu of confiscation fixed at Rs. 5,000/-. The rectification application was disposed of in these terms.