SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(Ker) 301

M.M.PAREED PILLAY
Vasudevan – Appellant
Versus
Asst. Collector of Central Excise – Respondent


Judgment :-

Petitioner's father is a licenced gold dealer and the petitioner is conducting the business. On 10-11-1974 his shop was inspected by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Trichur and party and seized certain items of primary gold and gold ornaments and they were confiscated under the Gold Control Act,1968. Petitioner's reply to the show cause was not accepted and Ext.P-1 order was passed by the first respondent confiscating the seized items of gold under S.71(1) of the Act with an option to the petitioner to redeem the gold ornaments on payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent did not take any steps to dispose of the appeal filed by him for about 8 years, that he was informed as per Ext. P-2 of the posting of the appeal on 26-6-1986 and that his counsel appeared before the third respondent on hearing dale and that it was submitted that the petitioner be allowed to redeem the gold ornaments on payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-. Third respondent passed Ext.P6 order rejecting the appeal and confirming Ext.P-1. Petitioner contends that he is ready to pay the fine amount of










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top