9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 63.600 grams of gold under section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, with an option to M/s. Bharat Jewellery House to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,500. A personal penalty of Rs. 1,500 was imposed on the appellant for contravention of the Sections 8, 31, 33 and 55 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and Rules 11 and 154 of the Gold Control (Forms, Fees and Miscellaneous Matters) Rules, 1968. The Appellate Collector reduced the personal penalty from Rs. 1500 to Rs. 500. 3. The facts of the case are as follows : The appellant is a gold dealer, having his business under the name and style M/s. Bharat Jewellery House at 257, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. On 22-8-1980 the appellant who is a partner in the firm was present whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same. Shri Bodh Raj (B.B. Gupta) gave a statement that the old gold ornaments belonged to him and that the same were given to the appellant for repairs. Since the wages could not be settled, the ornaments remained with the appellant. The Assistant Collector held that the explanation offered by the appellant could not be accepted and imposed a personal penalty as pointed out above. The Appellate Collector confirmed the findings but reduced the penalty. 4. Shri Daya Sagar, Consultant appeared for the appellant while Shri J.P. Anand, JDR for the department. 5. Shri Daya Sagar mainly pointed out that no show cause notice was issued to Shri Nanak Chand or Shri Bodh Raj Gupta or Shri Satish Kumar as required under section 79 of the Gold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Collector has mainly relied on the presumption contained under section 33 of the Gold (Control) Act. According to that section, no licensed dealer shall keep in the premises where he carries on business, as such a dealer, any primary gold, article, or ornament which is not a part of his stock-in-trade. There is also a presumption that the primary gold or ornament shall be deemed to be part of the stock of such dealer. This section has to be applied in the light of the explanation offered by the appellant regarding the possession of the ornaments. In the absence pf any acceptable or reasonable explanation, the authorities can act on the presumption that the offending ornaments formed part of the stock-in-trade. In this case the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereby affirming the version given by the appellant. 9. There is yet another infirmity in the department's case. Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act provides that no order of adjudication or confiscation or penalty shall be made unless the owner of the gold is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate the gold and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in writing. If it is so desired, he should be heard in the matter. Admittedly no notice was issued to Shri Satish Kumar, Shri Nanak Chand Gupta or Shri Bodhraj Gupta. The ruling reported in 1983 E.L.T. 687 cited by the learned Consultant holds that if no such notice was given within six months from the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
