9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (6) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstitution. 2.Cause has been shown by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given. 3.The case of the petitioner is that on the 18th February, 1958, gold ornaments weighing 323 tolas 10 annas 6 pies were seized by the Superintendent of Central Excise, from the shop of Gopi Kishan, who was her son-in-law and who was occupying a portion of the petitioner's house for carrying on business. The case of the petitioner is that the ornaments were kept in two iron safes which also belong to her, and Gopi Kishan had no title to these ornaments. On the 1st March, 1958, the petitioner filed an application to the Assistant Collector claiming the ornaments in question and asking that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to establish her claim to the gold ornaments. We do not, however, find it possible to accept the argument of the petitioner on this point because there is a statement in the counter-affidavit of the respondents that the petitioner was given an opportunity to appear in the case and in fact her lawyer appeared before the Collector of Excise on the 6th June, 1958, and was given a hearing. The learned Government Pleader also produced the original record of the case in the course of hearing and showed that the lawyer, Sri Krishna Prasad Chaudhury, was given a full hearing by the Collector of Excise before he passed the order. The order of the Collector of Excise made on the 6th June, 1958, runs as follows :- "Shri Krishna Prasad Chaudhury app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or sale. It was admitted by the Pleader that all these ornaments which according to him belong to Shrimati Kishuni Devi were in the custody of Gopikishan but according to him these were kept in a separate safe with the intention that these will form the capital to be invested by her in the firm of Gopikishan Co. which was to start as a joint partnership concern from 1-4-1958. 2 .The Assistant Collector's order against which this appeal has been made is with regard to his not agreeing to release some ornaments which were seized from Messrs. Gopikishan Co. and which Shrimati Kishuni Devi claimed were hers. The Assistant Collector's order said that at the time of the seizure it was not given out that these articles belonged to Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated that "it is not necessary for me to go into the merits of the claim as to whether the articles claimed by the petitioner belong to her or not." It is manifest that the possession or custody of the articles at the time of the seizure is not very relevant, but the question of title to the articles is important. If the petitioner is able to establish that she had title to these gold ornaments and that they were not smuggled goods, it is manifest that the Excise Authorities are bound to release the gold ornaments in her favour. In our opinion the Collector of Excise is bound to examine the legal title of the petitioner to the gold ornaments and give an opportunity to the petitioner to establish her claim by such oral and documentary evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
