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

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
V.P. Gulati, G.P. Agarwal, JJ.
Kishan Chand -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh -Respondent
Order Nos. A-649 to 656 of 86-NRB
Decided On : 30-10-1986

Advocates Appeared:
M. Ganesan, Ramesh Solanki,Shishir Kumar, Nisha Chaturvedi

ORDER

G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)

1. All the captioned appeals are directed against the common orders-in-original No. 3/Gold/83 dated 9-8-1983 and 17/Customs/83 dated 9-8-1983, both passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh imposing different personal penalties on the appellants namely; Rs. 1,00,000/- under the Gold (Control) Act and another Rs, 1,00,000/- under the Customs Act on the appellant, Shri Kishan Chand; Rs. 2,00,000/- under the Gold (Control) Act and another Rs. 2,00,000/- under the Customs Act on the appellant, Shri Jaswant Rai; Rs. 2,00,000/- under the Gold (Control) Act and another Rs. 2,00,000/- under the Customs Act on the appellant Shri Sudershan Kumar; and Rs. 5,000/- under the Gold (Control) Act and another Rs. 5,000/ under the Customs Act on the appellant, Smt. Usha. Besides these penalties, the Adjudicating Authority also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 75,000/-under the Gold (Control) Act and another Rs. 75,000/- under the Customs Act on one Shri Raman Kumar Pandit with which we are not concerned.

2. Brief facts of the case so far as relevant for the purpose of these appeals are that acting on the intelligence information, the Customs Preventive Officers checked the Punjab Roadways Bus which left Amritsar at 2300 hours on 10-12-1977. On checking of the passengers, Shri Jaswant Rai appellant, a goldsmith of Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana was spotted-out, and as a consequence, he was asked to get down from the bus. Search of the appellant Jaswant Rai resulted in the recovery of 10 gold biscuits bearing foreign markings weighing 10 tolas each and 8 gold strips (folded without bearing any markings) of 10 tolas each which were concealed in a cotton cloth belt tied around his waist under the pants worn by him. Besides, two bus fare tickets for Ludhiana were also recovered from one of the pockets of his coat. On examination of the plastic bag, held by him, in his hand Indian currency worth Rs. 6,550/-, two old used bangles, one iron dagger and a Railway Pass from Ludhiana to Khanna were also recovered. Since the appellant Jaswant Rai could not produce any documentary evidence to show the legal import into India of the aforesaid gold and gold strips or their lawful acquisition, the same were seized by the Customs Officers on the reasonable belief that the gold as well as gold strips were liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. In his statement tendered at the time of recovery the appellant, Jaswant Rai while admitting the recovery stated that 10 gold biscuits and 8 gold strips were purchased by him from the appellant, Shri Sudershan Kumar on cash payment of Rs. 1,35,000/-. He further stated that the delivery of the gold was given to him by the appellant Smt. Usha, wife of appellant Shri Sudershan Kumar. During the investigation, the appellant Kishan Chand in his statement dated 15-12-1977 stated that he delivered 10 gold biscuits in question to Shri Sudershan Kumar appellant as per the deal settled with him earlier. As a sequel thereof separate show cause notices under the provisions of Gold (Control) Act were issued to all the appellants and also to one Shri Raman Kumar @ Pandit calling upon them to show cause as to why the seized 10 gold biscuits and 8 gold strips be not confiscated and why they should not be penalised under the provisions of Gold (Control) Act. After the usual enquiry, the Adjudicating Authority vide its Order-in-Original No. 2/Gold/79 dated 9-4-1979 absolutely confiscated the seized 10 gold biscuits and 8 gold strips under Section 75 of the Gold (Control) Act and also imposed different personal penalties on all the appellants. Against the said orders-in-original all the appellants went in appeal before the Gold (Control) Administrator who vide his order No. 33-37/1982 dated 30-3-1982 remanded the case so far as personal penalty on the appellants was concerned with a direction that the case be re-adjudicated after granting personal hearing and

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top