9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (10) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order No. II/3/132/76-Gold, dated 28-1-1977 confirming the order of the Deputy Collector, Central Excise, Hyderabad dated 16-8-1976 whereunder he directed the confiscation of the three items of gold. The Government of India however set aside the penalty imposed on the revision petitioners and gave option to them to redeem the gold on payment of a fine of ₹ 18,000/-. 2. The relevant facts are as follows :- On 28-5-1975, the officers of the Central Excise, Headquarters, Gold Cell, Hyderabad visited the money lending shop of the writ petitioner Aljapuram Gangadhara Sa at Armoor in Nizamabad District and seized 713.500 grams of primary gold and gold ornaments for contravention of provisions of Gold (Control) Act, 1968. It appears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration of the evidence addused before him and the opinion of the trade panel came to the conclusion that there was no reason to doubt the bona fides of the petitioner who advanced the loans to the persons on the security of the gold offered by them and that it could not be said that the petitioner had acquired the gold for his own use or for putting in trade circulation. He then considered the question whether the various items of gold seized were gold ornaments or primary gold. In the light of the evidence produced before him he came to the conclusion that Items No. 1(a), 3 and 4(a) of the items in the list of the seized articles did not have the appearance of the finished ornaments, but their ends showed signs of cutting and that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 29-12-1978, confirmed the order of the Collector, Central Excise. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Government of India set aside the penalty imposed on the revision applicants, and gave them option to redeem the gold on payment of a fine of ₹ 18,000/- subject to the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Against the said order the writ petitioner alone has file this writ petition. The owners of the confiscated gold pieces did not challenge the orders of the Government of India. 6. On behalf of the petitioner, Sri B.K. Seshu, the learned Counsel contended that the pieces of gold seized did not constitute primary gold, but are gold ornaments and, therefore, there was no contrave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te authority, the Collector, found, after examining the seized articles, that they are heavy having rough edges and not fit to be put on children of one or two years, and that they could not be considered to be pieces of gold, the type of which were commonly used as ornaments in any State. The Collector further held that the confiscated pieces of gold constitute primary gold. These findings arrived at by the authorities under the Act were accepted and confirmed by the Government of India. Further the said findings of the competent authority are based on relevant statutory factors, and on a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties. The findings so reached cannot be interfered with, unless they are shown to be vitiated by any mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
