Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1988 (10) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case so far as relevant for the purpose of the instant appeal are that on 6-4-85 the authorities concerned on intelligence report raided the business premises of Ashok Seth who was carrying on his gold business under the name and style of M/s. Dwarka Dass Seth Jewellers, New Delhi and as a result thereof recovered and seized 67 pieces of new gold ornaments weighing 1133.100 gms. of 22 cts. purity valued at Rs. 2,15,270/- being found in excess. During investigation statements of the said Shri Ashok Seth and his father Shri Dwarka Dass Seth and also of the present appellant were recorded, and ultimately a show cause notice calling upon the said Shri Ashok Seth to show cause as to why the seized new gold ornaments be not confiscated and w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was recorded wherein he had stated that the contraband new gold ornaments were given to him under Issue Voucher No. 4 by the present appellant. He further submitted that the present appellant was also summoned under Section 63 of the Gold (Control) Act to give his statement. Consequently, in compliance thereof the present appellant appeared before the authorities concerned for an enquiry and his statement was recorded. In his statement, emphasised the learned counsel for the appellant Shri Kimti Lal (appellant herein) had stated that he went to the shop of Shri Ashok Seth with his contraband new gold ornaments along with Issue Voucher No. 4 dated 5-4-85 for approval and sale to the said firm. However, Shri Ashok Seth, Proprietor of M/s. Dwa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... support his contention that the present appellant is an aggrieved person he cited the following case law :- (1) M/s. J.K. Devi Sons v. Gold Control Administrator, 1983 ECR 2081 (Tribunal). (2) Jeevanlal K. Jain v. The Administrator, 1985 (21) E.L.T. 89 (Tribunal). (3) K. Chellappan Achari v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise (Kerala) reported in Cen Cus Gold Control Manual at page II/353. 5. In reply Smt. Nisha Chaturvedi, learned SDR while refuting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the present appellant cannot be said to be the aggrieved person in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. We have considered the arguments and fine that the contention of the learned counsel for t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce premises of Shri Ashok Seth and before the start of adjudication proceedings the statement of the appellant was recorded and the statutory records were checked during the investigation and therefore he should have been treated as the owner of the contraband gold ornaments and notice should have been issued to them in pursuance of the proviso to Sec. 71 of the Gold (Control) Act has also no force. Proviso to Sec. 71 of the Gold (Control) Act provides that where it is established to the satisfaction of the officer adjudging the confiscation that such gold or other thing belongs to a person other than the person who has, by any act or omission, rendered it liable to confiscation, and such act or omission was without the knowledge or conniv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stigation that he is the owner of the goods in question. In other words, from the stage of investigation till the date of taking the decision for the issuing of show cause notice as provided in Sec. 124, the authority concerned has to take a decision on the basis of enquiries made and evidence collected during the investigation relating to the ownership of the goods. The person claiming ownership of the goods in question at the stage of investigation but not treated as owner of the goods at the stage of taking decision for issuing of show cause notice can still participate in the adjudication proceedings by lodging his claim before the Adjudicating Authority and in that case the Adjudicating Authority would be bound to decide the case after .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates