9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evance against the impugned order. 2. Father of petitioner No. 1 is running a shop known as M/s. M.B. Malkani Jewellers at Sindhi Colony, opposite Paradise Cinema, Lady Jamshedji Road, Mahim. The father of petitioner No. 1 also carries on business in gold and gold ornaments at Shaikh Memon Street, Bombay, and holds licence required under the Act. It is the claim of petitioner No. 1 that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were carrying on business of gold ornaments at the rear of the shop situated at Mahim and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were certified goldsmiths. In January 1979, the petitioner No. 1 was in charge of the shop at Mahim as his father was ailing. The petitioner No. 1 is also a partner in the business at Shaikh Memon Street. On April 7, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the petitioners before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, ended in dismissal by order dated February 28,1981. The petitioners thereupon preferred revisional application before the Government of India and the revisional authority came to the conclusion that there was clear contravention of Section 27 of the Act by petitioner No. 1. The revisional authority set aside the finding of the lower authorities that petitioner No. 1 had violated Section 8(1) read with Section 8(6) of the Act. The revisional authority came to the conclusion that petitioner No. 1 should be permitted to redeem the gold ornaments on payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- only instead of Rs. 5,000/- ordered by the lower authorities. The penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether the orders passed by the authorities below holding that petitioner No. 1 had contravened Section 27(1) of the Act is sustainable on the material on record. As mentioned hereinabove, the Superintendent of Gold raided the shop premises at Mahim and gold ornaments were recovered from the safe kept in the shop and the key of which was in the custody of petitioner No. 1. It is not in dispute that petitioner No. 1 was in the control and custody of the shop and the safe placed therein. The claim of the petitioner No. 1 was that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were certified goldsmiths and they were permitted to carry on their business at the rear of the shop. It was further the claim of petitioner No. 1 that the gold ornaments found in the safe be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e faulted with. Shri Kanuga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, very strenuously urged that it should have been held that the ornaments belonged to petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 in support of the submission, claimed that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were certified goldsmiths and were required to maintain the record of receipt and sale of gold ornaments and two Registers in respect thereof were found at the time of raid. Shri Kanuga, had to concede that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 had not made any written record about handing over gold ornaments to petitioner No. 1 for safe custody. The learned counsel submitted that the letters sent by the customers were produced before the authorities to establish that ornaments were handed over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
