9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise, Delhi as to why the gold and gold ornaments weighing 476.00 gms. in 27 pieces of 22 cts. purity valued at Rs. 1,01,537.00 seized under Section 66 of Gold (Control) Act, 1968 not accounted for in their statutory records in G.S. 11 and G.S. 12 Registers or any other records, should not be confiscated under Section 71 of the Act and why penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 74 of the Act for the aforesaid contravention. 3. The case was adjudicated by Sh. B.P. Verma, the then Director of Publications, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi vide his Order-in-Original No. 2/88, dated 9-2-1988. In terms of this order, the 27 pcs. (476.700 gms) of gold ornaments were ordered to be confiscated under Section 71 of the Gold (Cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et aside by the Tribunal as being without jurisdiction, the proceedings did not continue even if the Collector could start the proceedings afresh by issue of a fresh show cause notice. In the instant case, the ld. Collector instead of starting the adjudication proceedings afresh as per the law adopted a short circuit and redjudicated the case on the basis of the old show cause notice notwithstanding the repeal of the Gold Control Act w.e.f. 6-6-1980. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of the Collector is not legal and proper. On merits the ld. Collector has failed to apply his mind to the facts of the case and committed the same error as the Director of Publications on facts. The impugned order shows that it has been passed wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r come up before the Tribunal and was disposed of by Order No. A/764/93-NRB, dated 28-9-1993 [1995 (75) ELT 842 (Tri.)] the operative portion of the order indicated that the Tribunal had come to conclusion that the department s contention regarding jurisdiction had remained unsubstantiated; and it was held that In these circumstances we need not enter into the merits of the case and it is sufficient to observe on our part that the impugned order" passed by Sh. B.P. Verma, Director of Publications, in view of Board s notification and order cited (supra) was without jurisdiction and did not amount to an order passed by the proper officer competent to decide such cases under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968." Therefore, the ld. Counsel contenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
