9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the gold or other person concerned, before ordering confiscation of the gold. It is to be decided whether a claimant of gold or his successors should be treated as the owner of gold or they are covered under the term the other person concerned . (ii) Whether successors can be debarred from inheriting the property of their father simply because the liability of Section 8(1) of Gold (Control) Act, 1968 attached to their father cannot be transferred to them. 2. When these applications came for hearing before us, Shri Suresh Chand Agnihotri appeared on his own behalf and on behalf of his brother Shri Mahesh Chand Agnihotri. He submitted a letter of authority from Shri Mahesh Chand Agnihotri to represent his case. Shri Suresh Chand Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, to the extent that redemption fine of Rs. 16,000/- was imposed in lieu of absolute confiscation, and Collector allowed the applicants to redeem the confiscated gold on payment of redemption fine. Appeal filed by the Revenue against the said order of Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, was decided by this Tribunal in the impugned orders No. A-67-68/87-NRB. After due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on record and arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Departmental Representative, this Tribunal could not hold that the gold in question belonged to Shri Ram Jiwan Agnihotri and it held the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Additional Collector restored. We order accordingly. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise is allowed and the appeal and cross-objection filed by S/Shri Suresh Chand Agnihotri and Mahesh Chand Agnihotri are dismissed. 7. As would be seen from the facts stated in the impugned order dated 4-2-1987 and from the above, the applicants herein were neither owner of the gold nor other person concerned . According to the view of this Tribunal, late Shri Ram Jiwan Agnihotri was not the owner of the seized gold. There is no question of inheriting the property by the applicants herein. In the circumstances, two questions raised by the applicants do not arise out of Order No. A/67-68/87-NRB, dated 4-2-1987 passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
