1979 (10) TMI 216 - HC - Central Excise

Gold control notice upheld, penalty challenge rejected. Court clarifies redemption rights subject to amendments. Appeal dismissed.

The court upheld the legality of the show cause notice issued by the Gold Control Administrator, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. The ... - Issues:1. Challenge to legality of show cause notice issued by Gold Control Administrator2. Enhancement of penalty and redemption fine3. Revisional powers of Gold Control Administrator4. Vested right of appellant to redeem seized gold5. Interpretation of Gold Control Rules pre and post amendmentAnalysis:Issue 1: Challenge to legality of show cause noticeThe appellant challenged the legality of the show cause notice issued by the Gold Control Administrator on July 26, 1968, proposing to enhance the penalty. The learned single judge upheld the legality of the notice, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.Issue 2: Enhancement of penalty and redemption fineThe Collector of Central Excise had imposed penalties and redemption fines on the appellant for violations of Gold Control Rules. Subsequently, the Gold Control Administrator issued a notice in 1968 to enhance the penalty and redemption fine. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging this enhancement, arguing against the legality of the revision.Issue 3: Revisional powers of Gold Control AdministratorThe appellant contended that the Administrator, who issued the permit for possessing gold, should not review his own order using revisional powers. The court rejected this argument, distinguishing between administrative acts and quasi-judicial functions of the Administrator.Issue 4: Vested right of appellant to redeem seized goldThe appellant claimed a vested right to redeem seized gold upon payment of the penalty amount. However, the court clarified that the right accrued based on the law as it stood on the date of the Collector's order, subject to subsequent amendments and revisional powers.Issue 5: Interpretation of Gold Control Rules pre and post amendmentThe court analyzed the applicability of the Gold Control Rules pre and post the 1966 amendment, emphasizing that the Collector's order, subject to revision, did not create an absolute vested right immune to further orders. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no justification to interfere with the learned single judge's decision.