9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dated 7-3-1986 imposing a fine of Rs. 2500/- on the appellant for contravention of Section 6(2) besides a penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. On 15-3-1985 at about 12.00 noon, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kakinada alongwith the staff visited the pawn broking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant is confining himself only with reference to gold ornaments totally weighing 117.500 gms (gross weight). So far as the un-accounted gold ornaments are concerned, it was urged that inasmuch as the same indisputably belong to third parties, the ornaments are not liable for confiscation in terms of proviso to Section 71 of the Act. The learned counsel therefore, contended that under law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly bears out that the gold ornaments under seizure from the pawn broking shop of the appellant belong to third parties. Therefore, the question that arises for my consideration in the present case is whether in the context of an admitted contravention by the appellant under Section 6(2) of the Act, whether the gold ornaments would be liable for confiscation. As rightly contended by the learned cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her with any package, covering or receptacle in which such gold is found, shall be liable to confiscation; Provided that where it is established to the satisfaction of the officer adjudging the confiscation that such gold or other things belongs to a person other than the person who has, by any act or omission rendered it liable to confiscation, and such act or omission was without the knowledge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
