9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (10) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticles were taken possession of by the raiding staff and from the raxine bag 35 pieces of gold sovereigns bearing marks, GEORY IVS VDY BRITT OMN REX FD IMP on the face side and 1916 on the reverse side, were recovered. As the sovereigns and the articles were admitted to be belonging to them a notice was issued under Section 71 to show cause as to why the seized sovereigns should not be confiscated and a penalty imposed under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the Act). In reply, the petitioners submitted that as the ornaments and the gold sovereigns possessed by them were far less than the prescribed limit of 4 000/- grammes no declaration was required to be made by them under Section 16(5) of the Act. The Deputy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts that apart from taking into possession the articles which were thrown in the adjoining premises, the house of the petitioners was searched for several hours. The two independent witnesses, Lekh Raj Nanda and Jagdish Sondhi, who admittedly were witnesses of the search, in their statements admitted that some ornaments were lying in the residential premises of Sahib Dayal petitioner. The search proceedings recorded by the raiding party and the show cause notice being silent in this respect and the two independent witnesses of the search having categorically stated that there were some ornaments Iying in the house of the petitioners, there was absolutely no material on the record on the basis of which a finding could be recorded that the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the result which ensues from a plain reading of the statute appears to be somewhat queer but it is not open to this Court to give a different meaning to the two clauses when there is absolutely no ambiguity in the language used nor it is capable of interpretation is two different ways. 4. This very provision came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in J.A. Abdul Hamid v. The Collector of Central Excise, Madras, 1973 M.L.J. (1) 311 wherein it was held that when both articles and ornaments are owned, possessed, held or controlled by an individual or family then the provisions which will be attracted would be of clause (b) of Section 16(5) of the Act and that there is no justification for the construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
