9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atement in respect of the seized gold on the pretext that he was mentally confused. No other statement appears to have been recorded on that date. The statement of G.H. Choksi was recorded on 11-7-1980. Among other things, he stated that the seized gold belonged to one Shri G.G. Patel, the second respondent. It was originally received by a certified goldsmith one Shri G.G. Soni who had brought the gold to his premises for testing purpose during his absence but his brother G.A. Choksi was present. The statement of J.A. Choksi was recorded on 29-8-1980. Among other things, he confirmed the receipt of gold from G.G. Soni. Shri G.G. Soni s statement was also recorded on 22-8-1980. He corroborated the version of G.A. Choksi and further submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal. 6. Shri Prabhu appearing for the appellants submitted that the Appellate Collector committed an error in setting aside the confiscation as well as reducing the penalty from Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 500/-. He urged that the Appellate Collector did not give reasons for setting aside the confiscation or reducing the penalty. Shri Prabhu submitted that the defence put forward by the persons to whom the show cause notices were issued namely that seized gold belonged to G.G. Patel is an after-thought. The seized gold did not belong to G.G. Patel. It was acquired by the gold dealer. He had failed to maintain proper accounts and vouchers. He had contravened Section 31, Section 55 as well as Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained in the show cause notice which had been extracted in para 6 of the order (Original). Shri Prabhu was questioned by the Bench as to why show cause notice was issued to G.G. Soni. G.G. Patel and J.A. Choksi if the seized gold did not belong to Shri G.G. Patel or not dealt with by Shri G.G. Soni and J.A. Choksi. Shri Prabhu had no ready answer. Shri Prabhu was also questioned as to the nature of allegation in the show cause notice made against Shri G.G. Patel. Shri Prabhu could not answer that question also. 8. After hearing Shri Prabhu and perusing the records, Shri Willingdon Christian was not called to argue. 9. There is no dispute that 362.800 gms. including 272.300 gms. of primary gold were seized from the licensed premises of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 gms. of primary gold without any authority under law and thus contravened the provisions of Section 8(1). The inference to be drawn from this allegation is that the Department accepted the statement of G.G. Soni that he handed over the gold to J.A. Choksi for testing. When once the Department accepts that the gold belonged to G.G. Patel, the confiscation of said gold cannot be made unless the adjudicating authority holds that G.G. Patel had knowledge of the contravention of the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act by the gold dealer or that G.G. Patel had connived in the contravention of the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act by the gold dealer. I specifically asked Shri Prabhu whether any such allegation was made against G.S. Patel. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
