9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ghing grams valued at Rs. 2,70,560/- from the residence of the appellant. The Income Tax authorities, however, released the seized gold and gold ornaments to the son of the present appellant Shri Manoharlal B. Sablok. But then the Gold Control Officer seized the entire quantity from Shri Devendrakumar, the son of the appellant, on the ground that the said gold contravened the provisions of the Gold Control Act. After recording statements of the appellants and others, and after issue of show cause notice and personal hearing, the Collector of Central Excise Customs, Pune ordered release of 2170.900 grams to certain members of the family of the appellant. He, however, ordered confiscation of 1078 grams of gold ornaments and 664.100 grams of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince gold ornaments are not liable to be confiscated there should be proportionate reduction in the quantum of fine. The further submission of Shri Shah was that Collector had imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The penalty if any could be levied in respect of possessing primary gold and not for possessing gold ornaments because no offence had been committed in respect of gold ornaments. Shri Shah further contended that there was no evidence that the appellant was in possession of primary gold hence no penalty can be levied on the appellant. He, therefore, prayed that the penalty on the appellant may be set aside, the fine in lieu of confiscation may be proportionately reduced. 4. Shri Pattekar, appearing for the Collector, tried ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 78 grams he was not required to make any declaration in respect of the said gold ornaments. Admittedly, the appellant, his wife, his son and daughter-in-law and mother were residing together. Even if we take the appellant family as a unit, the family is entitled to possess 4000 grams of gold ornaments without making any declaration. It may be pointed out here what has been found in the possession was ornaments and articles of gold. Therefore, Shri Shah was correct in contending that the Collector had committed an error in holding that there should have been a declaration in respect of the gold ornaments. The error committed by the Collector was in adding the primary gold to the quantity of gold ornaments. Section 16 does not require of maki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt s possession of primary gold has hot been established. In the said circumstances, Shri Shah contended that the penalty levied on the appellant should be set aside. The statement of the appellant was recorded during the investigation of the case. The appellant had admitted his possession though regarding ownership he stated that they belonged to his father-in-law and mother. Section 8 prohibits a person from owning or having possession or custody or control of any primary gold. Though there is no precise evidence as to where from the Income Tax authorities seized the primary gold having regard to the admission of the appellant, it could be safely said that he was either in possession or custody or control of the primary gold. Therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
