Primary gold is not required to be declared under Section 16 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, as it is neither an article nor an ornament. However, possession of primary gold after the Act coming into operation is contrary to law unless it is held in the manner provided by the Act.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the adjudication proceedings culminating in the orders dated 30th May, 1975, 24th April, 1976 and 18th July, 1977. It appears that on or about 23rd April, 1974 certain officers of the Central Excise searched the residence of the petitioner and amongst other seized and took away one "ananta", an armlet in the form of two and a half circles of wire of 22 carat fineness weighing 127. 500 grams, the value of which was estimated at Rs. 6,630/ -. Thereafter the petitioner gave a statement, in writing, at the time of the search. In the said statement, the petitioner stated, inter alia, as follows:"i signed the said authorisation in token of my having seen it. The officers then searched the rooms under my occupation in the above said residence in my presence and also in presence of two independent witnesses. On search the officers recovered primary gold 'araipanch' (24 circles) weighing 127. 500 gms. with other ornaments from steel almirah in my bed room. This gold belongs to my wife who wears it as ornament. She got it during marriage ceremony in 1939 and since then it has been lying with her. The Gold Control Officer seized the said primary gold in presence of witnesses and gave the copy of Panchanama. "

( 2 ) THE petitioner was thereupon served with the show cause notice and the petitioner showed cause. The petitioner contended that the gold seized was not primary gold but an ornament called "aria-panch" owned by his wife which was given to her at the time of her marriage in 1939. The said ornament, according to the petitioner, was in finished form for use, without any craftsmanship and it was made according to the choice and design prevailing at the time before the partition of Bengal. The ornament was received as a gift, according to the petitioner and his wife had occasionally used it according to Hindu mythology and its maintenance, according to Hindu mythology, should be continued until it was gifted to another person. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise in the order dated 31st March, 1975 observed, inter alia, as follows :"the gold piece does not bear the slightest trace or sign of wear by any male or female. The irregularity of the shape itself is proof enough that it cannot be worn as an ornament by any human being. At best it can be called as semifinished ornament and can rightly be described as primary gold as denned under Section 2 (r) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. As such, the violation of the provisions of Section 8 (1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is established. "the Assistant Collector of Central Excise therefore made an order of confiscation under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 100/ -. The petitioner preferred an appeal and reiterated more or less the said contentions. The petitioner was heard by the Collector of Central Excise. In the grounds of appeal, the petitioner had stated, inter alia, as follows:"this armlet or "ananta" is not primary gold but is an ornament which was given to his wife Sm. Kanika Roy Chowdhury by her partents at the time of her marriage in 1939 and it has since been retained by her as an item of good luck according to religious beliefs and social customs and conventions of your petitioner's family and society and it is of great sentimental value. As a matter of fact, bits from it have already been given by your petitioner's wife to her daughter and daughters-in-law at the time of their marriages as tokens considered to bring a long life and marital happiness and bliss to them. "the petitioner further contended that the absence of any sign of use was because the ornament of this type was hardly used and this type of ornament was used only on special occasions. As to the Irregularity of shape, it was pointed out that due to constant transfer from place to place it had lost some shape and besides certain bits and pieces had been given away