The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the time limitation for adjudication under Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, the definition of ornaments under the Act, and the importance of complying with the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Mohapatra, J. - In this reference under Section 82B(3) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (for short, ?the Act?), the petitioner calls in question the correctness of the order dated 26-7-1993 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Calcutta (for short, ?CEGAT?) in Appeal G-3/93 and Appeal G-7/93 thereby allowing the Appeal No. G-3/93 filed by one Kamala Rani Ray and dismissing the Appeal No.G-7/93 filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar (for short, ?the Department?).

2. Brief description of facts necessary for adjudication of the reference is as follows :-

On 4-2-1974, the Central Excise Preventive Officer of Cuttack searched the residential premises of one Sri Krishna Ballav Ray of Madhapur, Kendrapara in the undivided District of Cuttack (now in the District of Kendrapara). In course of the search operation, the officers heard a sound of throwing some metals into the open well in the courtyard of the residential premises of said Krishna Ballav Ray. On verification, a cloth bag was recovered from the well containing 34 pieces of circular slab of gold in crude form of uneven shape and size. Accordingly, the Officers seized the said primary gold weighing 1171.500 grams in a cotton bag containing said gold on 4-2-1974, under a Panchanama. Said Sri Ray did not volunteer to give any statement on that. However, the independent Panchas, namely, Sri Babaji Charan Behera and Maheswar Sahu, who were present and had witnessed search operation, gave such statements which were recorded to be considered in the adjudication proceeding. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to Sri Ray on 28-6-1974, from whose possession the gold in question was seized. Sri Ray, in reply to the show cause notice, sent a letter to the Additional Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar on 10-7-1974. Taking into consideration the submissions of Sri Ray made in the said letter, the Department vide its order dated 5-10-1974 (Annexure-1) held the gold seized to be primary gold and Sri Ray as the owner of the said gold. Consequently, the seized gold was confiscated for violation of Section 8 of the Act and penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed on said Sri Ray under Section 74 of the Act.

Being aggrieved by the said order under Annexure-1, Sri Ray moved the appellate authority, i.e., Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar. The Appellate Authority vide its order No. 29/Bhubaneswar/1977, dated 21-6-1976 (Annexure-2) rejected the appeal and upheld the order of the learned Additional Collector. Thus, Sri Ray moved the Revisional Authority, i.e., Government of India in a Revision which also came up to be rejected confirming the order under Annexures-1 and 2. Against the said revisional order, no reference was filed.

3. In the meantime, Smt. Kamala Rani Ray (opposite party), wife of Sri Krishna Ballav Ray filed T.S. No. 76/74 in the Court of the learned sub-judge, Kendrapara for a direction to the defendants, namely, Union of India and one Brundaban Kissan, Inspector of Central Excise and Customs to deliver possession of 34 pieces of gold bangles weighing 1171.500 grams wrongfully taken away by Inspector of Central Excise and Customs (defendant No. 2) from her possession and in the alternative, prayed for decree of Rs. 50,000/- as well as for compensation for depriving the plaintiff from enjoyment of those ornaments. In the said suit, Smt. Ray claimed ownership of the gold seized by the Central Excise Officer on 4-2-1974. She contended that she was using the seized gold as her ornaments. The same were not primary gold and did not belong to her husband, namely, Krisha Ballav Ray. Learned sub-judge, Kendrapara vide his judgment dated 23-2-1977 (Annexure-4) dismissed the suit holding the same to be not maintainable in view of Section 84 of the Act. Assailing the said judgment and decree, the opposite party preferred FA No. 122 of 1977 before this Court. This Court vide judgment dat