9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nafter referred to as the Act. 2. As the facts leading to these appeals are common and arise out of a common order, they are being disposed of by a single order. The brief facts of the case are : 3. On 24-2-1977, based on information, the Preventive Officers of Central Excise, Calicut, located one P.V. Raikar (appellant in 64/82) at M/s. Shoba Jewellery and along with him they went to his place of temporary stay at room No. 45, Srihari Lodge, M.P. Road, Calicut and searched the same. From his suit-case gold ornaments, old and new, weighing in all 5317 gms. were found. According to the subsidiary G.S. 12 produced by P.V. Raikar P.V. Raikar was a licensee under the Act holding licence No. 46/63 at Karwar which at the relevant time was v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b (Appellant in 65/82) 284.000 gms. 5. P.N. Ramachandra Rao (Appellant in 62/82) 76.000 gms. it was also claimed that simple acknowledgements on typed papers had been issued for the receipt of the old ornaments copies of which were with Raikar. The persons who were said to have given the old ornaments to Raikar were examined by officers of the Department and formal statements recorded from them on 5-4-1977, It was then elicited that information regarding the seizure was known to all the four persons, except P.N. Ramachandra Rao, though of a letter sent by Raikar in late February 1977 to V.T. Jacob (M.J. Lawrence, V.T. Jacob and M.J. Clietus are brothers-in-law and Francis is the brother of Jacob. Each of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of confiscation. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on P.V. Raikar under Section 74 of the Act. P.V. Raikar and all the claimants appealed to the Gold Control Administrator against this order of the Collector. The Administrator also held that the claim that the old ornaments belonged to the five individual was not tenable. It was also not possible to identify or co-relate, all gold ornaments entered in the register with those seized. He also did not accept the story regarding new ornaments having been made from out of 400 gms. of standard gold bars supplied by Bhima Bros. to Raikar for manufacture of new ornaments and brought by V.V. Raikar, brother of P.V. Raikar from Karwar to Calicut on 23-2-1977 and left with P.V. Raikar for o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the old ornaments, non-entry in the G.S. 12 register was accepted but in view of the existence of typed vouchers, accountal should be deemed to have been made. In any case, the offence should not be treated so seriously as to warrant the subsisting fine and penalty. 7. The authorised representative for the other appellants adopted the arguments of the representative for Raikar. 8. The SDR in reply stressed that in the statement recorded immediately after the seizure, P.V. Raikar claimed to have obtained all the old ornaments from Ramachandran Rao of Geetha Hotel, Ernakulam. When contacted next day itself, Ramachandran Rao denied having given any old ornaments whatsoever to Raikar. The first claim that the ornaments had been received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the weight and variety of new ornaments, he submitted that they could not have been made in the course of just three days. Again, if the job was so urgent that the ornaments were made in three days, it is incongruous that they were taken to P.V. Raikar at Calicut by his brother V.V. Raikar and left with P.V. Raikar, instead of taking them direct to Kottayam. He also urged that in spite of the entry in the register at Karwar, it is accepted that there was no entry in the subsidiary G.S. 12 register with P.V. Raikar at Calicut. Hence the offence is established. 10. We have considered the arguments of both sides. As rightly pointed out by the SDR the story of P.V. Raikar regarding the old ornaments does not hang together. For one thing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ..held, controlled,......or otherwise acquired or accepted or otherwise received......by him in his capacity as such licensed dealer.......The plea that such accountal is referable only to the premises of the gold dealer at Karwar and not to the gold dealer who had brought other ornaments with him after entering the same in a subsidiary G.S. 12 register which he carried with him is not acceptable. The ornaments continued to be held by a licensed gold dealer wherever he may be and subsidiary G.S. 12 register is merely an extension of G.S. 12 register maintained in the licensed premises of the dealer. To accept the plea of the representative of Raikar that Section 55 will relate only to accounts maintained at Karwar would nullify the objectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
