9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Anupam Kumar and Shri Ajay Kumar are the sons of Shri Shankar Prasad. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi is the wife of Shri Shankar Prasad. 3. Gold Control Officers, acting on an information on 24-11-1975, sealed locker No. 373, 380, 381 383 belonging to Chhawachharia family, in the United Commercial Bank, Purani Mandi, Ajmer. On 1-1-1976, from Locker No. 373, standing in the name of Master Anupam Kumar Chhawachharia (earlier minor but major at the time of seizure) seized 2,473.000 gms. of Gold ornaments and 8 gold guinees weighing 66 gms. On the same day, from Locker No. 381, standing in the name of Master Ajay Kumar Chhawachharia (earlier minor but major at the time of seizure) 2,483 gms. gold ornaments and 8 gold guinees weighing 64 gms, were seized. The officers also seized 463 gms. diamond studded jewellery, from Locker No. 373 (118 gms.), Locker No. 381 (166 gms.) and locker No. 383 [standing on the name of Vijai Kumar (179 gms)], respectively. The gold ornaments from the two lockers i.e. 373 381 worked out to 4956 gms. and 130 gms. gold guinees, which would thus total 5,086 gms. (there is discrepancy of 2 gms. in the weight of gold ornaments as set out in the order and 2 gms. in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the extent of 8,000 gms. and gold ornaments seized at Ajmer and Asansol were below the permissible limit. The Collector found that Section 16(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 had not been contravened in respect of these ornaments. He also found in the appellants favour with respect to 847.200 gms. of gold ornaments (also described as 696.500 gms. at some places) seized at Asansol on 19-1-1977. 6. The Collector, therefore, ordered return of the gold ornaments to the appellant. With respect to 86 gold sovereigns weighing in all 683.500 gms., the Collector held that these were liable to be declared as they were clearly in excess of the permissible limit. He found violation of Section 16(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 proved. He ordered confiscation of 86 gold sovereigns under Section 71 of the Act with an option to redeem the same under Section 73 of the Act on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 12,000/- and levied a personal penalty of ₹ 500/- each on Smt. Lilawati and Shri Shankar Prasad under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. 7. Aggrieved with the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, the appellants filed appeals to the Gold Control A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clause (a) of sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the Act. He submitted that the limitation on weight of articles owned, possessed, held or controlled by a person, specified in sub-clause (a) was the limit which would also govern possession of both ornaments and articles covered by clause (b). In possessing articles and ornaments, a person could not contravene the limits prescribed by sub-clause (a). According to Shri Gupta, the appellants possessed gold articles above the prescribed limit and as such, order of confiscation for gold sovereigns, redemption fine and the personal penalty was, therefore, justified and called for no interference. 12. Gold ornaments seized from the appellants have already been held to be within the permissible limit and released to the appellants. The issue before the Tribunal now is regarding confiscation of 86 sovereigns, redemption fine of ₹ 12,000/- and Personal Penalty of ₹ 500/- against each of the appellants. 13. Under sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 `every person who owns, or is in possession, custody or control of, any article or ornaments is required to make a declaration in prescribed form as to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this family. They were individuals and could own or possess articles and ornaments in their own right. Smt. Lilawati and her husband Shri Vijay Kumar would constitute another family. It was not disputed that the gold sovereigns were articles. 15. In the instant case both gold ornaments and articles were seized. The provision applicable, therefore, would be clause (b) of sub-section (5). Shri Shankar Prasad and Mrs. Lilawati could own, possess and control both articles and ornaments not exceeding 4,000 gms. Each. Anupam Kumar and Ajay Kumar could each similarly own, possess and control under sub-section (5)(b)(i) gold ornaments and articles not exceeding 2,000 gms. We will at this stage not consider the case of Shri Vijay Kumar and Smt. Lilawati. That would be considered at appropriate stage. The learned Collector found that S/Shri Shankar Prasad, Anupam Kumar and Ajay Kumar could own, possess, hold or control ornaments not exceeding 8,000 gms. He, therefore, held that 5981.20 gms. of gold ornaments seized were within the permissible limit. 16. The learned Collector in para 31 of the order said that 86 gold sovereigns weighing 683.500 gms. were required to be declared by Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not be applicable. 18. In view of the foregoing rulings, there can be no doubt that when provision of Section 16(5)(b) are attracted, the limit on the weight of gold articles provided under Section 16(5)(a) would not be attracted. In this case, as already pointed out above, the Collector found that S/Shri Shankar Prasad, Ajay Kumar and Anupam Kumar could own or possess upto 8,000 gms of gold ornaments and released 5,981.20 gms. If 683.500 gms. weight of articles is added to this quantity, the total is much less than 8,000 gms. which would be within the permissible limit. Section 16(1) could not, therefore, have been contravened. Out of 86 sovereigns, 30 sovereigns were claimed by Mrs. Lilawati and remaining 56 by S/Shri Shankar Prasad, Anupam Kumar and Ajay Kumar (40+8+8). Undoubtedly, in view of the foregoing reasoning these 56 sovereigns weighing 443.500 gms. would also be within the permissible limit. 19. It has been stated that if Shri Shankar Prasad possessed more than 4,000 gms. of gold ornaments and articles which included ornaments and articles belonging to his two major sons he ought to have given declaration. The Collector found 8,000 gms. to be permissible limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
