9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pothecated with them, by the various persons. It has further been held that the appellants have violated the provisions of Sections 6 and 16 of the Gold Control Act read with Rule 4 of the Gold Control (Forms, Fees and Miscellaneous Matters) Rules, 1968. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority has confiscated the gold ornaments, but has given an option to the appellants on payment of a fine of Rs. 15,000/-. He has also been imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on each of the appellants herein. The appellants' learned advocate Sh. T.N. Kaul has stated that the appellants had advanced money to their known friends and relations against the security of ornaments. There is no indication that the appellants were carrying on the business of hypothecat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Gold Control Act. She has also stated that having regard to the value of gold ornaments which is to the tune of Rs. 1,74,468/-, redemption, fine and penalties imposed cannot be any stretch of imagination being deemed to be on the high side. 3. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We observe that two provisions which have been held to have been contravened by the appellants are Sections 6 and 16 of the Gold Control Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 enables the Gold Control Administrator to prescribe a return to be furnished by Pawn brokers in respect of receipt or sale of hypothecated gold. While we set aside the plea of the learned advocate for the appellants that the appellants were not engaged in the ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... serve that the quantity of gold in the possession of each of the appellants did not exceed beyond the permissible quantity required to be held by each of them in their individual capacity in terms of that section. In other words, quantity found in possession of each of the appellants is less than 2,000 gms. of gold ornaments and as such, there was no need for declaration of any such gold by any of the appellants herein. The adjudicating authority appears to believe on the basis of Supreme Court's observation in the case of Sh. Bhadri Prasad v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur and others (AIR 1971/SC-H70) that every pawn broker is required to make a declaration of his holdings and furnish a return, in terms of Rule 4 of the Gold Control ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
