9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M.C. Jain Ajmer fine gold 1 3. Fine Gold Ajmer 9950 1 4. 9950 2 5. B.D. Shankerlal K.L. Ajmer 9950 Total 1 9 The brief-case of the petitioner was also searched and 6.800 kg. of silver in small ingots bearing markings Ajmer Saraf Sangh Kanta Chhap Asli Chandi and Refuse (Keeti) of silver weighing 259.9 grams and 2 pieces of silver samples weighing 20 grams were also found besides the above-mentioned gold and silver. Following documents were also recovered from the possession of the petitioner :- (1) Two tickets of Deluxe Bus from Ajmer to Jodhpur No. 820875 and 820876. (2) One receipt No. 11195h dated 30th May, 1974 of Dharam Kanta Ajmer. (3) One-receipt No. 11215h dated 30th May, 1974 of Dharam Kanta Ajmer. (4) One Bill No. 5777 of Hotel Ratan dated 30th May, 1974. The raiding party seized the gold under Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act and the silver under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on a reasonable belief that the gold in question was being carried, possessed/controlled by the petitioner Pannalal in contravention of Section 8 of the Gold (Control) Act and the silver wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jaipur, after taking into consideration the entire record and the submissions made by the parties at the time of investigation, and replies to the show cause notice and submissions made during the course of personal hearing, held that the stand taken by the petitioner that he got melted the gold ornaments of his wife through a Dalal was false. According to the learned Dy. Collector, the petitioner failed to produce the alleged Dalal for obvious reasons. No man parts with his valuable to an unknown person and the petitioner possibly failed to produce the Dalal because of the fact that he did not get gold ornaments of his wife melted, but on the other hand, acquired and possessed the primary gold in question through the alleged Dalal who had not come forward having abetted the petitioner in acquiring of impugned primary gold other than by lawful means. The learned Deputy Collector also observed that Mohanlal, the father of the petitioner was a certified goldsmith with certificate No. 192 and it was specifically stated by the petitioner in his voluntary statement dated 30th May, 1974 that he had also been working with his father on a shop for the last 2-3-years in manufacturing gold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the petitioner before the learned Collector were that at the time of seizure itself, the petitioner had explained that his father was a certified goldsmith and the petitioner was assisting him and, the gold involved represented the melted and refined gold out of the ornaments of his wife who was in the capacity of a customer and the Adjudicating Officer ignored these facts and without issuing notice to the real owner of the gold erroneously ordered confiscation of the impugned gold. The impugned gold was got refined by certain well known Refiners of Ajmer who embossed their marks on the said gold but they were let off and the petitioner was punished erroneously. The Department had failed to prove the case against the petitioner and the inference drawn by the Adjudicating Officer that the impugned gold represented the gold of 4 biscuits of foreign gold remained absolutely unsubstantiated. That for technical offence of not entering the gold in the Register, it is absolutely confiscation besides penalty of Rs. 1000/- was too harsh. The appeal was fixed at Jodhpur for personal hearing on 21-7-1978. No appearance was made from the side of the petitioner. Instead a written brief da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revision before the Central Government. The Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Revenue vide order dated 31st March, 1980 (Annexure 3) also found no reason to interfere with the order in appeal passed by the Collector. He found that the order of the Collector was correct in law and based on facts. The learned Additional Secretary in his order (Annexure 3) also observed that both the persons namely, S/Shri Pannalal (petitioner) and Kriparam Soni stated that they did not know the name and address of the Dalal but they can identify them if he is brought ; before them. Therefore, it was not possible for the Seizing Officer to know who was the Dalal and there was no clue to trace him out. They, however, searched the premises of the persons whose seals were embossed on the gold seized pieces but they could not get anything incriminating each of these Refiners of silver denied having refined any gold or having received any ornaments through Shri Pannalal. The learned Additional Secretary also took into consideration that the writings on the reverse of the weighment slip of gold was as under : 34.4.4.25 34.4.4.25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssession of the petitioner has been confiscated without any valid reason. I, therefore, see no force in this contention. The provisions of the Customs Act applied with respect to the silver seized from the possession of the petitioner, while the gold has been confiscated under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act. The petitioner has been found to be in possession of primary gold in contravention of Section 8 (1) of the Gold (Control) Act and it has nothing to do with the provisions of the Customs Act. 8. It was next contended that the Dy. Collector in his order Annexure 1 had found that the seized gold was 463.430 grams neither to the weight of 4 biscuits of gold i.e. 40 Tolas. There was very nominal difference of 2.17 grams which could be termed as melting loss. It is contended that the loss of 2.17 grams cannot be considered as a nominal loss and in any case such gold of the quantity of 2.17 grams must have been found in the possession of the petitioner. It is also submitted that there was nothing unnatural in not disclosing the name and identity of the Dalal as the petitioner was not knowing him and no adverse inference should have been drawn against the petitioner for no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Gold Control Act, 1968 and he was asked to show cause and explain to the Dy. Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur within 10 days as to why the seized gold should not be confiscated under Section 71 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 and why further penal action should not be taken against him under Section 74 abid. Thus, the main charge against the petitioner was that he was found in possession of primary gold in contravention of Section 8 (1) of the Gold Control Act for which he was given a due notice. The explanation given by the petitioner was that he has brought the gold ornaments of his wife and the same were got melted by the Refineres at Ajmer and after such melting he was taking the gold which was seized from his possession. All the three authorities, namely, Dy. Collector, Collector and the Central Government have concurrently disbelieved such explanation given by the petitioner. The petitioner had not produced the Dalal, the Refiners whose names are embossed on the gold pieces, have clearly denied that they ever melted the gold ornaments and had no connection at all with the gold pieces found in the possession of the petition. It was not expected from the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- The only obligation upon the Government of India while deciding the revisional order under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 82 is that if the order is to be varied, then the person against whom such order is being passed prejudicial to his interest has to be given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation and, if he so desires of being heard in his defence . In the present case, admittedly the Central Government has not varied the orders passed by the Collector or the Dy. Collector and as such the question of giving any fresh opportunity to show cause does not arise. 10. It was also contended by Mr. Maheshwari that under clause (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the Gold (Control) Act there was no necessity to make a declaration in relation to any ornaments where the total weight possessed by an individual did not exceed 2,000 grams. It is submitted that as the total weight of 9 pieces of gold recovered from the possession of the petitioner was 463.430 grams, as such there was no necessity to make any declaration. I see no force in this contention. As this argument is based on the assumption that such gold pieces were prepared out of the melting of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
