9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the original adjudicating authority and reducing it to Rs. 10,000/- and the penalty from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. On 21-11-82 the Officers attached to the Hqrs. Preventive Unit, Madras visited the appellant s pawn broking premises at Bazaar Street, Pattabiram, Madras-72 and verified pawned gold items with relevant pawn tickets, ledger and connected records of the appellant. At that time the authorities found that a total of 495.500 gms of gold ornaments of 20 to 22 ct. purity was not accounted for in the pawn brokers register. Since the gold ornaments were not accounted for as per law, they were seized by the authorities under a mahazar attested by witnesses. The appellant gave a statement before the authorities on 21-11-1982 to the ef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s statement the charge under Section 27 of the Act is clearly made out. 3. I have considered the submissions of the parties herein. Without going into the various pleas urged by the learned counsel for appellant in my opinion the appeal can be disposed of on a short question of law. The adjudicating authority namely the Deputy Collector of Central Excise found the appellant guilty of contravention of Section 6(2) and of the Gold Control Act and on the appeal preferred by the appellant as against the same, the appellate authority namely Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) under the impugned order exonerated the appellant in respect of the charge under Section 27. It would not be out of place to extract the observations at this place of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch person in contravention of the provisions to this Act. A plain reading of Section 6(2) would clearly bear out that it is intended to regulate the transactions relating to receipt, delivery or sale of any gold of any person who advances any money on the hypothecation, pledge, mortgage or charge of any article or ornament by means of proper accounting. In the instant case, the case of the department is that the ornaments under seizure were kept for the purpose of sale by the appellant. It is not the case of the department that the ornaments are pledged ornaments with the appellant coming within the mischief of Section 6(2). The statement recorded from the appellant immediately on seizure on 21-11-1982 which the learned DR contended to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the filing of this appeal by the present appellant as against the charge of contravention under Section 6(2) under the impugned order a notice has been given to the department in the last week of July and the department has not considered it expedient to file any cross objection as per law. In such a situation I have no other alternative except to proceed with the appeal and determine the only question that falls for consideration namely whether the charge of contravention under Section 6(2) of the Act has been made out or not. In my opinion in the context of the evidence available on record in this case the charge under Section 6(2) and Section 27(1) would not co-exist for the simple reason that it is nobody s case that the ornaments unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
