9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase gold ornaments, (nose pins). His brief case was examined in the presence of two witnesses and nose pins weighing 292.700 gms. (fixed on two pieces of card-board) and small parts of nose pins weighing 5.400 gms. (wrapped in a piece of paper) were recovered. On enquiry the appellant admitted that he did not possess any voucher or permit for the acquisition, possession, custody or control of the said ornaments. The same were, therefore, seized under Section 66 of the Gold Control Act. The appellant in his statement before the Gold Control Officers stated that he is certified goldsmith and had come to Delhi from Amritsar the previous day; that he had manufactured these nose pins himself after melting the gold ornaments of his family; that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Deputy Collector has upheld the contravention of Sections 8 and 27 of the Gold Control Act. He has, therefore, confiscated the nose pins, a brief case and two card-board jewellery boxes under Section 71 of the Gold Control Act, 1968. A penalty of Rs. 8,000/- was also imposed on the appellant under Section 74 ibid. 3. Learned lower appellate authority in an appeal filed by the appellant herein has held as follows :- As the facts stand, it can at best be said that the appellant had brought the goods with an intention of selling them because there is nothing to indicate that he had made an offer to anyone to sell them. The advocate correctly points out that Section 27 would only be attracted when the person has commenced business as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t herein intended to sell the gold nose pins. 5. Learned SDR appearing for the appellant-Collector has reiterated the grounds in appeal memorandum as stated above. 6. Learned Advocate, Shri L.C. Sikka appearing for the respondent has, inter alia, stated that Section 27 would be attracted only when there would have been an actual act of selling the nose pins. It is clear from the panchnama as well as the statement dated 2-1-1982 of the appellant and that of Prem Nath of Prem Nath Jewellers that the appellant was merely found sitting in the shop of Prem Nath Jewellers. The appellant was not found in either displaying the goods to Prem Nath Jewellers or offering them for sale. In the absence of any such circumstance, leave apart actually s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate authority. It has been rightly found on the basis of evidence on record relied upon by the Deputy Collector (Gold) in the order-in-original that the appellant (respondent?) was merely found sitting in the shope of Prem Nath Jewellers. He was not found offering the goods for sale to the said jewellers. Similarly, the statement of Prem Nath of that Jewellers firm corroborates the statement of the appellant (respondent ?). Merely because a large quantity of nose pins has been found with the appellant (respondent ?), it does not mean that he was selling or attempting to sell them to attract Section 27 and Section 71 of the Gold Control Act. I also observe that the appellant-Collector in his grounds of appeal as reproduced in detail ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
