9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (12) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Control) Act. The petitioners were served with show-cause notice dated August 16, 1980 and the petitioners filed reply on August 25, 1980. After consideration of the reply, the Additional Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune, came to the conclusion that the gold under seizure belonged to the customers of the petitioners and is not liable to confiscation. After recording this finding, the Additional Collector observes in his order dated February 22, 1983 that the seized gold ornaments could not be returned to the petitioners as the same are reported to be missing from the office of the Superintendent C.E. (Preventive) of Pune-I Division and the police investigation did not yield any result. The refusal of the Additional Collecto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious act will not lie if the tortious act is committed by a public servant in discharge of statutory functions which are referable to the sovereign powers of the State. In our judgment, the assumption of Shri Desai that the powers of seizure are referable to the sovereign powers of the State is fallacious. The power to seize is under the statutory provision, i.e. Section 66(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, and it is impossible to suggest that a power to seize is based on the sovereign power of the State. The gold ornaments were seized because the Superintendent of Central Excise felt that the petitioners were holding the ornaments in violation of the statutory provisions of the Gold (Control) Act. There is no inherent power to seize gold ornam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ency of adjudication proceedings and when it was realised that the ornaments were lost and what steps were taken to realise the stolen ornaments. The return is entirely silent on this crucial aspect and, therefore, it is not clear as to whether the claim of theft of the gold ornaments is genuine or otherwise. In any event, as the respondents are claiming that the gold ornaments are lost, the respondents are bound to return the market value of the ornaments as prevailing on February 22, 1983, when the Additional Collector passed the order discharging the show-cause notice. 4. Shri Joshi submitted that the amount which the petitioners were entitled to was withheld by the respondents right from February 22, 1983 and, therefore, the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
