Gold Control powers require valid notification authority, and jurisdiction cannot exceed the monetary limit fixed for confiscation and penalty.

Under the Gold Control regime, search power could be exercised only by a Gold Control Officer specifically empowered by a valid Central Government notification, and the record did not show that the Assistant Collector had written authority to issue the warrant or delegate the search; the search and seizure were therefore invalid. The Deputy Collector also lacked jurisdiction to confiscate the gold ornaments or impose personal penalty because the governing notification confined that power to cases where the value of gold liable to confiscation did not exceed Rs. 25,000, while the seized ornaments were valued higher. The impugned search, confiscation, penalty and connected criminal proceedings could not be sustained, and refund of amounts recovered was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Assistant Collector was competent to issue the search warrant and authorise the search of the petitioner's premises; (ii) whether the Deputy Collector had jurisdiction to order confiscation of the gold ornaments and impose personal penalty on the basis of the value of the seized goods.

Issue (i): whether the Assistant Collector was competent to issue the search warrant and authorise the search of the petitioner's premises.

Analysis: Under the Gold Control Act, the power to search had to be exercised by a Gold Control Officer empowered by the Central Government, and the relevant notification had to clearly authorise the officer and define the scope of delegation. The record did not establish that the Assistant Collector had been specifically empowered in writing to issue the warrant or to delegate the search to the Inspector. The notification relied upon was not shown to have been in force for the relevant time, and the materials produced did not justify the exercise of search power by the Assistant Collector.

Conclusion: The search warrant and the consequential search were invalid and the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the Deputy Collector had jurisdiction to order confiscation of the gold ornaments and impose personal penalty on the basis of the value of the seized goods.

Analysis: The value of the seized ornaments was assessed at Rs. 33,000/-. The notification placed on record empowered the Deputy Collector to exercise adjudicatory powers only where the value of the gold liable to confiscation did not exceed Rs. 25,000/-. Since the adjudication order was passed when that threshold was applicable and the value in question exceeded it, the Deputy Collector lacked jurisdiction to confiscate the goods or impose penalty.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty order were without jurisdiction and the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned search, seizure, confiscation, penalty and connected criminal proceedings could not be sustained, and the petitioner was entitled to refund of the amounts recovered.

Ratio Decidendi: A search, confiscation, or penalty under the Gold Control regime is invalid unless the officer exercising the power is specifically empowered by a valid government notification, and adjudicatory jurisdiction cannot be exercised beyond the monetary limit fixed by the governing notification in force at the relevant time.

---