The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific authorization by the central government for officers to exercise powers under the Gold (Control) Act.

RAJASEKHARA MURTHY, J.

( 1 ) IN these two writ petitions the petitioners who are brothers, have challenged the order passed by the additional collector of central excise, belgaum dated 19-1-1985 (Annexure-A ). They have also prayed for quashing the endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent, the collector of central excise (appeals), Madras dated 13 3-1985 (annexure-g-1 ). Annexure-A is the order passed by the additional collector of central excise exercising his power under the gold (control) Act, 1968. Annexure-g-1 is the endorsement issued by the collector of central excise (appeals), Madras returning the appeal filled by the petitioners before him against the order of the additional collector of central excise (Annexure-A ). The facts leading to the adjudication-order passed by the first respondent, are these :-the petitioners are silver-smiths by profession carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Ganesh jewellers, kolhapur. On 9-5-84 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 9-5-84. The residential premises of the 2nd petitioner at kolhapur, as well as his shop-premises were also searched on 14-9-84. after completing the investigation a show cause notice was issued on 19-9-84 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' ). 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 gold-control cases lies to the collector of central excise (appeals), Madras, and not to the tribunal. When the petitioners re-submitted the memorandum of appeal to respondent-2, the collector of central excise (appeals), Madras, gave an endorsement on 13-3-85 declining to entertain the appeal, as per Annexure-G -1 ). The petitioners have sought for quashing of this endorsement also, in addition to the prayer made to quash the original order passed by the additional collector. The only ground that is required to be considered in these cases relate to the challenge made to annexure-a, the adjudication Order, on the question of urisdiction of the additional collector to adjudicate under the gold (control) act. The contention of the petitioners is that the order of adjudication passed by respondent-1, is liable to be quashed as one made without jurisdiction. The argument in support of this contention is that the order has been made in contravention of Section 75 of the gold (control) Act, since the additional collector of central excise was not one of the officers authorised by the central government under Section 78 (b) of the gold (control) act. In order to appreciate this contention of the petitioners, it is necessary to reproduce Section 78 of the gold control act:-"78. Adjudication, any confiscation may be adjudged or penalty may be imposed under this act - (a) without limit, by a gold control officer not below the rank of a collector of central excise or of customs ; (b) subject to such limits as may be specified in this behalf, by such other gold control officer not below the rank of a superintendent of central excise, as the central government may, by notification, authorize in this behalf. "under sub-clause (a), a collector of central excise or a customs collector is empowered to make an order of confiscation or penalty under the act. Under sub-clause (b), the central government may, by noti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document