9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (8) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut 11.000/-. This raid was made by the police in connection with an investigation of some offence. The police, however, closed the case but informed the Central Excise authorities for appropriate action in respect of the gold KADAS on the ground that they appeared to be primary gold. On 4th March, 1974 Superintendent (Preventive) Central Excise seized the said KADAS (described as round bars) and prepared Panchanama in that behalf because in his opinion the KADAS constituted primary gold. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25-4-1974 as to why the gold seized under section 66 of the Gold Control Act should not be confiscated under section 71 of the Act and why penalty should not be imposed under section 74 abid for contravent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity, i.e., the Assistant Collector, Central Excise did not consider certain statement and his finding was perverse. Lastly, it was urged that proper opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner to lead evidence in support of his contention and, therefore, principles of natural justice were violated. 5. In reply learned standing counsel for the respondents Shri Nema submitted that the adjudicating authority which has the power of confiscation has also the jurisdiction to decide whether there is any contravention of the Gold Control Act and whether the seized goods constitute primary gold or not. In reply to the second ground, Shri Nema submitted that the adjudicating authority examined all the material placed before him and recorded his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfiscating. Under Section 79 a person from whom the gold is seized is informed of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate such gold and then reasonable opportunity of making a representation is afforded to him. Sections 80, 81 and 82 provide for appeal and revision. Thus it is clear that the power and jurisdiction to decide whether the seized article is primary gold or not vests in the adjudicating authority and it is not open to this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to decide the question whether the seized article is primary gold or ornament. It is, therefore, not necessary to refer to the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the seized article was an ornament and not prima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellate authority after discussing the finding of the Assistant Collector observed in paragraph 4 as follows : - "I have myself examined these pieces, and I have no ground to differ from the authority below, to fall within the definition of ornament a thing must be in a finished form, which is not the case here. I find that these pieces have been pressed with a die to give a colour of ornamentation. These pieces are too gib to be worn as Kadas i.e., ornaments." 8. It is thus clear that the finding of the authorities below could not be called perverse merely because they did not choose to accept the opinion of Panch witness Purshottam as gospel truth. This ground also, therefore, has to be rejected. 9. Learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
