9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (9) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant. 3. According to the department, on the basis of information, on 4-2-1983 that about a kg. of new gold ornaments not covered by valid documents would be brought by a person for sale to the shop of M/s. Shantilal Shobhavat Co. they visited the said premises and found the appellant along with others holding a briefcase. On inspection of the briefcase they found new gold ornaments weighing 925.000 gms along with 96 pieces of German silver screws. After carrying on the search of the premises of M/s. Shantilal Shobhavat Co. a panchanama was done as to the gold ornaments contained in the briefcase which the appellant was carrying. He was also questioned and he appears to have stated that he had brought the gold ornaments for se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the appellant. 7. For his finding that the appellant had contravened provisions of Section 27(1), the Collector entirely relied on the appellant s statement recorded on the date of seizure. He brushed aside the defence put up on 5-2-1983 and subsequently as an after-thought. 8. During the hearing of this appeal Shri Shah appearing for the appellant vehement ally contended that the Collector was unjustified in holding that there was contravention of Section 27(1). There was no proof of the same. On the other hand, the appellant was only found in possession of gold in a dealers premises. No statement of the dealer or any of the persons who were present at the relevant time was recorded. The department did not make any effort to find ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the defence taken on 5-2-1983, having regard to his earlier statement made on 4-2-1983, which was more specific viz. that the gold was brought for sale and there was no voucher evidencing the possession or manufacture. Further statement of the appellant that the seized gold belonged to the dealers or his wife and mother as well as the defense put forward on 5-2-1983 and the subsequent documents produced are all false. Therefore, he urged that the appeal may be rejected. 10. I have carefully considered the submissions made on both the sides and perused the available records. The only charge against the appellant was contravention of Section 27(1). There was no other charge not even a charge under Section 55 or contravention of any other Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department s evidence that the appellant had come to sell the ornaments would be sufficient to hold that the appellant had contravened the provisions of Section 27(1). 13. As stated by me earlier, the licence is required for carrying on business as a dealer in gold. The Act does not require of obtaining a licence for effecting a single transaction of sale or purchase of gold whatsoever be the magnitude of the single transaction. In the instant case, even if the entire material relied upon by the department is accepted, it only establishes that the appellant had come to sell certain ornaments. He had not sold any ornament. This evidence would not be sufficient to hold that the appellant had carried on business as a dealer in gold. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
