1991 (3) TMI 141 - HC - Central Excise

High Court remands case for review, emphasizes evidence, quashes previous orders

The High Court partially allowed the petition, quashing previous orders and remanding the case to the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, emphasizing ... Evidence Issues:Challenging legality and validity of order passed by Collector of Central Excise, Baroda; Recovery of gold during search by Income-tax Department; Confiscation of gold under Gold (Control) Act, 1968; Appeal before Gold Control Administrator; Revision by Government of India; Ownership interest in seized gold; Non-consideration of relevant documents by authorities.Analysis:The petitioners challenged the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, regarding the confiscation of gold under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The search conducted by the Income-tax Department resulted in the recovery of gold, leading to the subsequent seizure by the Central Excise Department. The Collector held that certain gold items were of primary gold and exceeded the permissible possession limit. The petitioners contended that the gold was ancestral property, supported by documents like a note from 1925 and a will from 1959. They argued that these documents were not adequately considered by the authorities, leading to an incorrect decision. The petitioners sought to set aside the orders and remand the matter for further consideration by the Collector of Central Excise. The High Court partially allowed the petition, quashing the previous orders and remanding the case to the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, emphasizing the need for a proper review based on all relevant evidence.The Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, had ordered the confiscation of primary gold and excess gold articles possessed by the petitioners, along with imposing redemption fines and personal penalties under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The Gold Control Administrator later modified the redemption fines and personal penalties but upheld the essence of the Collector's order. The Government of India, upon revision, rejected the appeal. The petitioners, including other family members claiming ownership interest in the seized gold, challenged the legality and validity of the orders. They argued that crucial documents proving the ancestral nature of the gold were not adequately considered by the authorities, leading to an erroneous decision. The High Court, after thorough analysis, set aside the previous orders and remanded the matter to the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant evidence in such cases.The petitioners contended that the gold in question was ancestral property, supported by documents dating back to 1925 and 1959. However, the authorities did not adequately consider these documents in their decision-making process, leading to an unjust confiscation order. The High Court agreed with the petitioners, noting the failure of the authorities to properly evaluate the relevant material on record. The Court emphasized the importance of considering all available evidence before reaching a decision in cases involving the confiscation of assets under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. As a result, the High Court quashed the previous orders and remanded the matter for a fresh review by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, ensuring a fair consideration of all pertinent documents and arguments presented by the petitioners.