9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 68, the 'Act' for short, at Nellore and Shri Kamalchand the Second Respondent herein is an employee under Lakshmi Jewellery. On 17-5-85 the Second Respondent Kamalchand was intercepted at Trichur by the Central Excise Officers on prior intelligence and a total quantity of 1671 gms. of new gold ornaments in trade quantities were recovered from his possession. The authorities effected seizure of the same as Kamalchand did not have any valid voucher or permit to possess the said ornaments in trade quantities and since the authorities had reason to believe that they were intended for purposes of sale in contravention of law. Respondent Kamalchand also gave an inculpatory statement before the authorities confessing to the fact that he brought al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise, Trichur, which resulted in the order of adjudication dated 22-5-87 imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on respondent Lakshmi Jewellery and Rs. 5,000/- on respondent Kamalchand. The Respondents herein preferred an appeal against the same before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, who under the impugned order dated 16-11-87 set aside the same on the ground that inasmuch as the respondents herein had been earlier proceeded against in adjudication by the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichur, cannot proceed against them for the same transaction once over. It is this order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) that is challenged before us in appeal. 3. Shri K.K. Bhat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missions made before us. We have gone through the Show Cause Notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise, dated 8-11-85 against the respondents herein in respect of the seizure of ornaments from the second Respondents Kamalchand and other connected circumstances of the case. When proceedings instituted against the Respondents resulted in an order of adjudication by the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin dated 3-11-86, we are at a loss to understand as to how proceedings could be instituted in respect of the same transaction against the respondents once again by the Assistant Collector, Trichur under law. The plea of the learned S.D.R. that the subsequent or second proceeding against the respondents is only in respect of 119.600 gms. a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said order: "35. M/s. Emerald Jewellery, Trichur admitted to have purchased 119.600 gms. of new gold ornaments from Shri Komalchand without any voucher. It is seen that they have not issued any receipt voucher and they have also not accounted for these gold ornaments in the records maintained under the Gold (Control) Act. Since the above gold ornaments were seized as a result of follow-up action and this case is being dealt with separately, I refrain from taking any action against M/s. Emerald Jewellery in this order." Presumably, the Assistant Collector should have been under a mis-apprehension that the proceedings against M/s. Emerald Jewellery would also cover the respondents herein inasmuch as the ornaments belonged to the first resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
