9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business under the name and style of M/s. Ganesh Jewellers, Kolhapur. On 9-5-1984 a taxi (fiat-car) bearing No. MTF 7558 coming from Kolhapur towards Belgaum was accosted by the officers of the Central Excise Department near Sutgatti Bridge in Belgaum district, on reliable information that the petitioners were carrying contraband gold from Kolhapur to Belgaum. During the search and seizure that followed, three primary gold bars were recovered from the possession of the first-petitioner valued Rs. 2,79,000/- and the same was seized under Panchanama dated 9-5-1984. The residential premises of the 2nd petitioner at Kolhapur, as well as his shop-premises were also searched on 14-9-1984. 6. After completing the investigation a show cause notice was issued on 19-9-1984 to petitioners 1 and 2, and one Sheikh Javeed, the Driver of the Car. This was followed by the adjudication proceedings by the first-respondent which culminated in the order dated 19-1-1985 (Annexure 'A'). 7. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioners preferred an appeal to the 'CEGAT, Madras. The Tribunal returned the appeal with the endorsement that the appeal against the order of the Additional Collector in g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under Section 2(1) to mean, a Gold Control Officer appointed under Section 4. Under Section 4, Gold Control Officers are appointed by the Central Government by notification issued for the purpose of the Act. Such Gold Control Officers, may exercise such power and discharge such functions as are specified or conferred by the Central Government. 14. Notification dated 27th December, 1980, was issued under Section 78(b) of the Gold Control Act authorising, among other officers, Additional Collector of Customs indicating the limits of power. 15. By Notification No. 3/81 dated 1-8-1981, in addition to the Additional Collector of Customs, the Additional Collector of Central Excise was also included at Sl. No. 3 in the Notification dated 27-12-1980 to exercise all such powers as indicated in Column No. 3 along with Additional Collector of Customs. By a subsequent notification dated 6-6-1984 both the Additional Collector of Customs and the Additional Collector of Central Excise were omitted from the notification dated 27-12-1980. The three notifications are reproduced below :- I. "S.O.985 (E) DATED 27TH DECEMBER 1980 In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Section 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1968 (45 of 1968), the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Dept. of Revenue) No. S.O. 985 (E), dated 27th December 1980, namely :- "In the table to the said notification, serial number 3 and the entries relating thereto shall be omitted". 16. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners advanced on the basis of these notifications is that the Additional Collector, who passed the Adjudication order on 19-1-1985 had no jurisdiction to make the order. If the petitioners succeed on this point, no other ground need be considered. I, therefore, do not propose to consider the other grounds urged in the writ petitions and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government also addressed the arguments confining only to this point. 17. As can be seen from the scheme of the Gold (Control) Act, the power to adjudicate under the Act is governed by the provisions of Section 78 of the Act. Under Section 78(a), both the Collector of Customs and Collector of Central Excise are vested with unlimited powers of adjudication under Gold (Control) Act. But so far as the oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the powers of a Collector under the Central Excises Act, should be understood as a Collector for all purposes under the Gold (Control) Act also. 25. Therefore, the only point that arises for decision on the basis of these arguments is: "Whether the Additional Collector of Central Excise continued to exercise all the powers of a Gold Control Officer beyond 6-6-1984, and, if not what is its legal effect on the adjudication order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum on 19-1-1985 (Annexure A), which is impugned in these writ petitions?" 26. I am not convinced with the argument advanced on behalf of the Central Government justifying the order made by the Additional Collector that even after he ceased to be Gold Control Officer beyond 6-6-1984, he could exercise powers under the Gold (Control) Act. The argument of the learned Counsel for the Department has to be rejected, outright, since any power to be exercised by him must be traced to and flow from any notification issued by the Central Government, authorising him to exercise such of the powers of adjudication, confiscation and penalty under the Gold (Control) Act. No officer other than those authorise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference to decisions dealing with other Acts which may not be pari materia. 32. In The Board of Muslim Wakfs v. Radha Kishan - (AIR 1979 S.C. 289), the Supreme Court had this to say in a similar situation : "It is not a sound principle of construction to interpret expressions used in one Act with reference to their use in another Act, and decisions rendered with reference to construction of one Act cannot apply with reference to the provisions of another Act, unless the two Acts are pari materia. Further, when there is no ambiguity in the statute, it may not be permissible to refer to, for purposes of its construction, any previous legislation or decisions rendered thereon". 33. In S. Mohan Lal v. R. Kondiah -(AIR 1979S.C. 1132), Sri Chinnappa Reddy, J. went further and said that it is a sound, and, indeed, a well-known principle of construction that meaning of words and expression used in an Act must take their colour from the context in which they appear. (Para 3). 34. The decision of Delhi High Court in M/s. Ram Singh Manmohan Singh Ors, v. Union of India Ors. - (1990 CRI. L.J. 1228), cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no bearing on the point. 35. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
