9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llector of Central Excise, Bangalore dated 5-5-1986 imposing a fine of Rs. 12,500/- under Section 73 of the Act in lieu of confiscation of 699.500 gms. of gold ornaments not declared by the appellant besides penalty of Rs. 2,500/- under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Officers of the D.R.I. Zonal Unit, Bangalore, visited the residence of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) the husband, wife and one or more minor children, or (ii) any two or more of them. It was urged that the appellant Champalal had a major son and his wife living in the same house and inasmuch as the major son of the appellant and his wife would constitute a separate family by themselves within the meaning of Section 16(6) of the Act they would be entitled to possess separately 4000 gms. and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antity of 699.500 gms. would be a contravention under Section 16(1) of the Act. 4. I have considered the submissions of the parties herein. Under Section 16(1) read with Section 16(5) a family would be entitled to hold and possess 4000 gms. without any declaration. The term family has been given a special statutory definition under the Act. It is stated that for the purpose of declaration under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 16. I also find that the appellant and his major son have filed separate Wealth Tax Returns before the authorities and this would also prove that the appellant s major son was not a member of the Hindu undivided family of which the appellant is said to be a Kartha. Since the adjudicating authority has not taken this aspect into consideration and has held that the appellant would be under l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
