Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (6) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. On 13-2-1985, the officers of the Central Excise Department visited the residence of the appellant alongwith the officials of the Income-tax Department and found the appellant in possession of 6012.200 gms. of gold ornaments of 22 ct. purity. Since the appellant was found in possession of gold ornaments in excess of 4000 gms. in respect of which he had not filed any declaration in terms of Section 16 of the Act, the authorities effected seizure of 2013 gms. under mahazar as per law. The appellant gave a statement before the authorities that during 1975 he had given a declaration for about 3 Kgs. of gold ornaments under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act and that he received gold o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g with his wife, would constitute a family within the meaning of Section 16(6) of the Act and that unit would be entitled to possession of 4000 gms. and, therefore, the question of the appellant making any declaration does not arise at all. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the ratio of the ruling in the case of S. Champalal v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore [reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 159] of this Tribunal to which one of us has been a party. The learned counsel further submitted that the reasoning of the adjudicating authority in para 10, sub-clause (2) of the impugned order is incorrect on facts and in law. It was urged that the appellant had in the reply to the show cause notice clearly mentioned that the ornaments u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellant is living with his wife, mother-in-law, 2 married daughters and a major son, who is married, is not disputed before us. Under the provisions of the Act, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the term family has been given a special statutory definition under Section 16(6) of the Act as consisting of - (i) the husband, wife and one or more minor children, or (ii) any two or more of them. In terms of Section 16(5), a family would be entitled to hold ornaments upto 4000 gms. The appellant, who was living with his wife, would constitute a family comprising himself, his wife and minor children. This unit, which would come within the mischief of definition of the word family under Section 16(6) of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... themselves would constitute different units of family within the meaning of Section 16(6) of the Act, as indicated above, the appellant cannot be fastened with any statutory obligation to make a declaration of the ornaments belonging to various other families. We are not inclined to countenance the submission of the learned Senior Departmental Representative, that even if the appellant were to hold temporary possession of the ornaments of other families, he would have to make a declaration as per law. In our opinion to adopt such a strict interpretation of the section would tantamount to putting it in a straight jacket as it were, rendering the very provision of the Act totally unworkable. If we can illustrate this point, if the major son .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts are recovered from various parts of the house, it would not be fair to conclude that the appellant alone has exclusive custody or possession or the ownership of the ornaments so as to fasten on him an obligation under law to make a declaration thereof. Even in the statement given by the appellant on 13-2-1985 immediately on seizure the appellant had stated that the ornaments belonged to the family and that his son Shri Venkatachalam got married on 9-9-1984 and got by way of gifts, presents gold ornaments and daughter-in-law also brought gold ornaments. Therefore, on consideration of the entire facts on record we are inclined to hold that there is no evidence to warrant a conclusion that the appellant was in possession or custody or cont .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates