TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds show cause notice under Gold (Control) Act, allows objections. Seized gold return provision clarified.</h1> <h3>N. NAGAMANICKAM SETTY Versus COLLECTOR OE CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE AND OTHERS</h3> N. NAGAMANICKAM SETTY Versus COLLECTOR OE CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE AND OTHERS - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 75 (Karnataka) Issues Involved:1. Legality of the show cause notice issued by the Government under Section 82 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.2. Entitlement of petitioner No. 1 for the return of seized gold.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Show Cause Notice Issued by the Government:The petitioners challenged the show cause notice issued by the Government under Section 82 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, on the grounds of 'legal mala fides.' They argued that the revisional authority proposed to revise on charges that had not been framed by the Collector, and the proceedings were initiated to oblige the Collector. The Court noted that Section 82(2) empowers the Central Government to suo motu call for records and revise decisions to ensure correctness, legality, or propriety. The Court emphasized that a show cause notice is typically interfered with only if the issuing authority lacks jurisdiction or the notice is time-barred, neither of which applied in this case. The Court found no merit in the petitioners' claim of 'legal mala fides,' stating that the Government's action based on the Collector's information did not constitute illegality. The Court declined to interfere with the show cause notice, allowing the petitioners to present their objections before the Government.2. Entitlement of Petitioner No. 1 for the Return of Seized Gold:Petitioner No. 1 claimed entitlement for the immediate return of the seized gold, arguing that the Collector had not initiated fresh proceedings within six months from the Administrator's order. The Court examined the second proviso to Section 79 of the Act, which mandates the return of seized gold if proceedings are not initiated within six months. However, the Court clarified that the proviso applies only to original proceedings and not to cases where appellate or revisional authorities are involved. The Court also noted that the Administrator's order was not a remand but reserved liberty for the Collector to initiate fresh proceedings. The Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on the Supreme Court's rulings in Assistant Collector of Customs v. Charan Das Malhotra and other cases, stating that these did not support the petitioner's claim for the return of gold before the completion of revisional proceedings. The Court concluded that the claim for the return of gold was ill-conceived and dismissed the writ petition.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the legality of the show cause notice issued by the Government and rejecting the claim for the return of seized gold. The petitioners were granted one month to file their objections to the show cause notice before the Government. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and copies of the order were to be communicated to the respondents within ten days.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
