Third-party ownership claims require notice before confiscation of seized gold; limitation was also counted within time.

Confiscation of seized gold under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 could not be sustained without notice and a reasonable hearing to persons asserting ownership, because Section 79 required the adjudicating authority to examine title and whether the owner had knowledge of or connived at the contravention before rejecting such claims. The summary rejection of third-party ownership claims without issuing show cause notices therefore vitiated the confiscation process. On limitation, a reference application filed within sixty days from service of the Tribunal's order, and on the first working day after closed holidays, was treated as within time and not barred under Section 82B.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the failure to issue show cause notices to persons claiming ownership of the seized gold ornaments vitiated the confiscation order under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. (ii) Whether the application for reference was barred by limitation under Section 82B of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

Issue (i): Whether the failure to issue show cause notices to persons claiming ownership of the seized gold ornaments vitiated the confiscation order under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

Analysis: Confiscation under Section 71 could be sustained only after examining not merely the alleged contravention, but also the ownership of the gold and whether the owner had knowledge of or connived at the contravention. Where third parties asserted ownership and supported the claim with contemporaneous material, the adjudicating authority could not reject the claims summarily without affording them an opportunity to establish title. Section 79 required notice and a reasonable opportunity of representation and hearing before confiscation could be confirmed against such claimants. A show cause notice to the persons claiming ownership was therefore integral to a lawful confiscation inquiry on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The omission to issue show cause notices to the claimants of ownership vitiated the confiscation order.

Issue (ii): Whether the application for reference was barred by limitation under Section 82B of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

Analysis: The reference application was filed within sixty days computed from the date after service of the Tribunal's order. The record also showed that the filing date fell on the first working day after the relevant closed holidays. The application was therefore within time and not hit by limitation.

Conclusion: The application for reference was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The reference application was maintainable and was rightly allowed, with the question of law referred to the High Court arising from the Tribunal's order.

Ratio Decidendi: In confiscation proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, where third parties claim ownership of the seized gold, Section 79 requires issuance of notice and opportunity of hearing to such claimants before their claims can be rejected and confiscation sustained under Section 71.

---