1989 (3) TMI 140 - HC - Central Excise

Court orders return of confiscated gold under Gold (Control) Act, 1968, reducing redemption fine.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner in a case involving the confiscation of gold under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The Tribunal reduced the ... Confiscation and redemption fine-Gold (Control) - Restitution Issues:1. Confiscation of gold under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.2. Appeal process and reduction of redemption fine.3. Request for return of seized gold or payment of its value.4. Dispute over the appropriation of gold by the Government.5. Legal principles governing restitution and redressal.6. Comparison with a similar case from the High Court of Calcutta.Analysis:1. The judgment revolves around the confiscation of 78.500 grams of gold from a licensed dealer in gold under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, for alleged violations. The adjudicating authority directed confiscation of the gold but allowed redemption on payment of a fine. The petitioner challenged this order in appeal, leading to a reduction in the redemption fine by the Tribunal (Ext. P10).2. The petitioner sought the return of the seized gold or payment of its value after the Tribunal's decision. The respondents contended that the gold had already been sent to the Mint as Government property, making the Tribunal's order ineffective. However, the court emphasized the appeal process and the authority of the Appellate Collector to set aside the confiscation order or direct the return of the gold, highlighting the need for due process and fairness.3. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the reduced redemption fine absolved them from returning the gold, emphasizing the petitioner's right to benefit from the Tribunal's decision. Restitution in specie was deemed necessary to redress any wrongful confiscation, and the court cited a similar case from the High Court of Calcutta to support the principle of restoring the status quo ante.4. It was held that the time limit for payment of the redemption fine was not a decisive factor, and the Department's failure to inform the Tribunal about the non-redemption in time was deemed significant. The court ruled that the respondents were obligated to return the gold or pay its value to the petitioner, with the cause of action arising from the Tribunal's order.5. Ultimately, the court allowed the original petitions, directing the petitioner to deposit the redemption fine within thirty days. If the deposit was made, the respondents were ordered to pay the value of the seized gold as on the date of payment, ensuring that the petitioner was not disadvantaged by the delay in returning the gold post the Tribunal's decision.