9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (10) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stands transferred to the Tribunal under section 82 (a) of the Gold Control Act, 1968 and is being disposed of as an appeal. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on information the officers of Gold (Control), Calcutta searched the shop premises of M/s. Mahalaxmi Jewellery, 31/1, Sapaoanda Road, Calcutta-26 under the occupation of the appellant. The officers recovered gold and gold ornaments weighing altogether 398.900 gms. valued at ₹ 17,823/- along with private books of accounts showing illicit transactions of gold and gold ornaments from the appellant s shop premises and seized the said gold and gold ornaments for the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Gold Control Act, 1968. The private books of accounts revea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and 317.700 gms are of 15 carat purity. Regarding 51.900 gms of primary gold he had stated that these were melted from ornaments for the customers out of customers ornaments and the balance quantity of 317.700 gms of gold of 15 carat purity have been collected as re-made are sweepings of the last 14 years. The learned Collector did not accept the contention of the appellant and had confiscated the seized goods under section 71 ibid. Out of 398.900 gms, 51.900 gms of primary gold and 317. 00 gms of sweepings of gold of 15 carat were absolutely confiscated. However, in respect of 29.300 gms of new assorted gold ornaments of 22 carat purity, the appellant was given an option to redeem the same after payment of fine of ₹ 2,000/- under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs is also highly excessive. He has stated that the appellant did not maintain any G.S. 13 Register and has admitted the violation of provisions of section 55 of the Gold Control Act, 1968. He has submitted that the seized account books may be treated as records provided under the Gold Control Act. Lastly, he has pleaded that the penalty is highly excessive and has pleaded for acceptance of the appeal. 4. In reply, Shri B. Bhowmik, the ld. JDR has referred to the Paper Book filed by the respondent and the statement of the appellant dated 20-12-1977. The English translation of the statement of Shri Santosh Kumar Dey is reproduced below : J, Sri Santosh Kumar Dey Son of Late Bhuban Mohan, to-day on 20-12-1977, I am rendering this state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a copy of the said certificate. He has also objected that the appellant cannot raise the plea of valuation at this stage. He has pleaded for dismissal of the appeal or in the alternative if this court feels proper the case may be remanded to the lower authorities. 5. In reply, Shri Chatterjee has referred to the contents of the revision application. He has submitted that in the revision application, the appellant had duly mentioned the names of the customers. He had also stated that subsequently the appellant had obtained a licence from the Gold Control Authorities, Calcutta vide certificate dated 30th January 1978. A copy of the same was attached with the Memorandum of Appeal. The ld. consultant has pleaded for acceptance of the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ld. Collector is highly excessive. To meet the ends of justice we reduce the penalty to ₹ 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only). Accordingly, the appellant gets a relief of ₹ 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only). Except for this modification, the appeal is rejected. 7. The Revenue has filed a Cross Objection under section 81(5) of the Gold Control Act, 1968, which was presented in the Registry on 8th August, 1983. The order of the ld. Collector of Central Excise is dated 6th November 1978. Before the formation of the Tribunal, the provisions of old sections 80, 81 and 82 ibid related to the filing of appeal, power of revision of the Administrator and power of revision of the Central Government and there was no pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doubt that provisions which, if applied retrospectively, would deprive of their existing finality orders which, when the statute came into force, were final, are provisions which touch existing rights. My learned brothers, while deciding the appeal of M/s. Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1983 E.C.R. 439D = 1983 E.L.T. 809, had held that the right of cross objection arises only when the party demanding such right had a right of an appeal and did not exercise such right and wants to file cross-objection, when the other party has filed an appeal. The Respondent admittedly had no right of an appeal. Therefore, the Respondent cannot claim a right to file cross objection. The prayer, therefore, of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
