9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and possessed by the applicant in contravention of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and Rules made thereunder; (ii) Whether the Department had establishsd any conscious possession of new gold ornaments weighing 1029.400 grams by the applicant firm especially when the learned Respondent himself has exonerated the partner of the firm of the charge of contravention of the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and the Rules made thereunder; (iii) Whether the whole proceedings are vitiated inasmuch as no mandatory show cause notices were issued to the respected owners of the gold ornaments under Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968; (iv) Whether the mandatory provisions of the Proviso Clause sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 has been violated; (v) Whether the claims of the customers of their respective gold ornament is negative in any way by the Department; (vi) Whether the claim of the respective customers their affidavits claiming the ownership of the goods, the affidavits of the goldsmiths supported by the entries in their statutory records and confirmed on enquiries made by the Department, the affidavit of Shri Inder Gopal has no evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the aforesaid Rules in respect of the new gold ornaments weighing 1092. 400 grams had been conclusively established; (iii) the pieces of old gold ornaments weighing 25.900 grams were claimed by Shri Jagdish Chand. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, his claim was allowed and he was, accordingly, given the benefit of the proviso to Section 71 of the Act; (iv) nevertheless, the charge of contravention of Section 36 of the Act, read with Rule 13 of the Gold (Control) (Forms Fees Miscellaneous Matters) Rules, 1968 and Section 55 of the Act read with Rule 11 of the said Rules in respect of the pieces of old ornaments by the Applicant is proved beyond doubt, inasmuch as the explanation of the Applicant for the failure to issue vouchers to Shri Jagdish Chand cannot be believed. Accordingly, he ordered confiscation of the seized new gold ornaments weighing 1092.400 grams under Section 71 of the Act with an option of redemption on payment of a fine of ₹ 50,000 within 3 months of the receipt of the order and also imposed a penalty of ₹ 25,000 on the Applicant under Section 74 of the Act. He, however, ordered the release of the pieces of old gold ornaments wei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t any loss of time. The delay in submitting the said application to the offices goes to show that it was written much later than as claimed and as such it loses its value. An adverse inference is accordingly to be drawn that after discussion plea was taken that as a matter of fact ornaments are not owned by the firm but by the customers. We do not find any force in the said contention. (b) para 7 of the order wherein the probative value of the evidence of Inder Gopal and the extracts of GS 13 registers of four goldsmiths was discussed; (c) para 8 of the order, reading as under :- Further it is submitted that many customers have come forward to claim the ornaments. The Department has rejected their claim as being unsubstantiated. Reliance is being placed on photostat copies of application at Annexures A to D. In our opinion, there is nothing wrong in rejecting the same since the customers claiming the ornaments had no receipt of handing over the gold to the goldsmiths through Inder Gopal. It is not difficult to arrange for a few persons to depose in a particular manner. The circumstances must corroborate the claim otherwise that has to be isolated and rejected. 5. Bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of it, unless it is established to the satisfaction of the officer adjudging the confiscation that such gold......... belongs to a person other than the person who has, by any act or omission, rendered it liable to confiscation and such act or omission was without the knowledge or connivance of the person to whom it belongs. In the premises, satisfaction that the relevant criteria had been established for confiscation, necessarily, involves an enquiry not merely into the alleged contravention but also into the ownership as well as the knowledge or connivance of the owner in the contravention alleged. Even more so, in a case where, as in this case, the ownership is not merely claimed by others but supported by the entries made in the GS 13 registers of four goldsmiths. Obviously, no such enquiry can take place without affording an opportunity to the persons claiming to be the owners to prove such ownership. Without any such opportunity to the claimants, it is not possible to arrive at a summary finding, as the Respondent did in his adjudication order, that the plea of ownership by persons other than the Applicant was nothing but concocted. (Para 9 of the discussions and find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
