Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1991 (3) TMI 141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The search was carried on from July 29 to July 31, 1972. In the search, gold weighing 8662.300 gms. was recovered. Out of this, gold ornaments weighing 536.00 gms. were returned on the spot and rest of the gold and gold ornaments, i.e., 8126.300 gms. was seized under a Panchnama. Thereafter the said gold and gold ornaments were seized by the officers of the Central Excise Department and a regular Panchnama thereof was drawn. Statements of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 were recorded. Show cause notice dated December 30,1972 was issued to both petitioners No. 1 and 2. Petitioner No. 1 inter alia contended that the residence was being used as a religious place by a group of people following "Moksh Margi Sampraday". That the gold in que .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s of gold weighing 20 gms. could not be said to be ornament or article and hence he found that the same were primary gold. But he held in favour of the petitioners as far as 29.00 gms. sheet was concerned. He further held that one "Rawa" of gold weighing 5.700 gms. was of primary gold. He held that five Ranies of gold weighing 276.00 gms. were primary gold. In respect of certain other articles of gold also he held against the petitioners. The total weight of the gold and gold articles which was held to be primary gold was 6278 gms. Taking into consideration the gold ornaments released at the time of search on July 31,1972, i.e., 536 gms., the total quantity of articles and ornaments of gold possessed by the petitioners No. 1 and 2 came to 6 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ess of the permissible quantity that could be held by an individual, under Section 16(5) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, without filing a declaration, I order confiscation of the said gold ornaments under seizure, under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. However, I grant an option to Smt. S.R. Vyas, to pay a redemption fine to Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. Forty thousand only), in lieu of confiscation and redeem the said gold ornaments. The options to redeem the gold articles and ornaments on payment of fine as ordered in sub-para (b) and (c) above, shall be exercised within three months from the date of receipt of this order with the condition that the provisions of Gold Control Act, 1968, in regard to declaration etc. shall be fully compl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment of India considered the same and rejected the revision as per order dated September 15,1980. 7. Petitioners No. 1, 2 as well as petitioners No. 5 to 7, who are relations of the petitioner No. 1, have Filed this petition challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid orders. It may be noted that petitioners No. 3 and 6 are daughters of petitioner No. 1 and petitioners No. 4 and 5 are sons of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 7 is the mother of petitioner No. 1. All these petitioners have also claimed ownership interest in the gold seized and ordered to be confiscated. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners relied upon a note dated February 28,1925, written by Shri Vallabhram, late father- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the departmental authorities had come to a different conclusion, it would have been a different matter. In the instant case, it appears that after making reference to these documents in the narration of events, the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda has not referred to these documents while arriving at the findings. Thus, the order passed by the Collector and subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Government of India cannot be sustained on the short ground that the relevant material has not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned orders. Hence, the petition is required to be allowed. But, at the same time the matter would be required to be remanded to the Collector of Central Excise to proceed further i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates