9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on each of the appellants under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, the Act for short. 2. Appellant Lakshmanan is the father and the appellant, Thiagarajan is his son. On 16-5-1985 the Central Excise authorities visited the licensed premises of M/s. Saravana Jewellers, a proprietory concern belonging to appellant, Lakshmanan at Madurai, and verified the stock in trade with reference to accounts. At the time of the visit of the officers appellant Lakshmanan was absent in the shop and his son appellant, Thiagarajan was present. The authorities found that 769.500 gms. of gold ornaments had not been accounted for in the statutory accounts and, therefore, effected seizure of the same as per law under a ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation statement of the appellants in respect of 359.950 gms. and released the same and confiscated only the remainder viz. 409.500 gms. It was urged that even in respect of this 409.550 gms. the appellant produced vouchers maintained as per law and though the vouchers were not rejected by the adjudicating authority as not genuine or bona fide, penalty was levied on the ground that the vouchers were not produced by the appellants immediately on seizure. 4. Shri Vadivelu, the learned Departmental Representative, submitted that even though no Show Cause Notice has been specifically issued to the licensee Lakshmanan inasmuch as a copy of the Show Cause Notice issued in the name of appellant Thiagarajan has been sent to Lakshmanan, this would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties fully knew that Lakshmanan was the licensee or should have come to know about this elementary fact immediately on the date of seizure as evidenced by the mahazar and the statement of Thiagarajan, it is most surprising that no such Show Cause Notice at all as per Section 79 of the Act was issued to the licensee Lakshmanan. Even when this mistake was pointed out by appellant, Thiagarajan in his reply to Show Cause Notice the authorities even at that time did not even issue errata and send a separate Show Cause Notice containing various allegations directed against appellant, Lakshmanan and instead, they merely sent a copy of the Show Cause Notice addressed to Thiagarajan to Lakshmanan. Sending a copy of the Show Cause Notice addressed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enable. Merely sending a copy of a Notice addressed to Thiagarajan containing various allegations would not be a Notice within the meaning of Section 79 sent to licensee Lakshmanan. I, therefore, hold that the impugned order confiscating the gold ornaments, which admittedly form part of the stock in trade of licensee Lakshmanan, suffers from a serious infirmity by reason of non-issuance of a Show Cause Notice to appellant, Lakshmanan in terms of Section 79 of the Act and this infirmity is incurable and would vitiate the impugned order and the impugned order is, therefore, set aside. So far as.appellant Thiagarajan is concerned, the learned D.R. was not able to justify before me as to how proceedings instituted against him are sustainable in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
