9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. [Order per : K. Prakash Anand, Member (T)]. - Heard Shri K.R. Mehta, Consultant and Shri Jaswant Singh, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri S. Krishnamurti, SDR for the department. 2. Shri Mehta emphasizes that appellant is a certified goldsmith for more than 20 years. It is submitted that the entire case has been handled by the department in a strange manner. The show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose to record the receipt of the register on the following day. 4. It is also submitted that the show cause notice' itself admits that there were some pawned and old gold ornaments. Appellant, it is claimed, was undertaking money lending on pawning of ornaments under certificate of U.P. Government. 5. It is also urged that under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, order of confiscation cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds and giving them a reasonable opportunity of making a representation. In this connection, Shri Mehta has relied on the following case law : 1. 1986 (26) E.L.T. 737 (Tribunal) - Ramjilal Kundam Lal v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi. 2. 1986 (25) E.L.T. 57 - Dwarka Prasad Gupta v. Collector of Central Excise, Delhi. 8. Shri Krishnamurti reiterates the stand taken in the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrect or on the basis of available evidence, held that it was false. He has done neither. 10. It is also observed that in the order-in-original, it is stated that from G.S.13 register produced on 27-7-1982, the names and addresses of persons from whom the gold ornaments were received for repairs and manufacture could not be ascertained and that the party made many new entries subsequent to seizur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see the point made by the learned Consultant that ornaments of M/s. Sohan Lal & Sons could not be confiscated without giving him due notice under Section 79. The Collector should have also given his finding as to why sale vouchers pre-authenticated by the departmental officers were considered by him to be not acceptable. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the order appealed against is set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
