1993 (11) TMI 74 - HC - Central Excise

Court orders return of confiscated gold, rejecting government's objections. Mandamus issued for delivery within 3 weeks.

The High Court upheld the petitioner's right to receive 250 grammes of gold confiscated by the central excise authorities, as directed by the Customs, ... Redemption fine and penalty - Gold - Appellate Tribunal Issues:Petitioner seeking return of gold seized despite Tribunal orders.Analysis:The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution after obtaining an order from the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) directing the central excise authorities to return 250 grammes of gold seized. The confiscation proceeding initiated resulted in the confiscation of 484 grammes of gold, with the original authority directing confiscation of 434.900 grammes and imposing penalties. The CEGAT, in its order dated 19th June 1990, directed the confiscation of 250 grammes of gold but allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000. The petitioner complied with the order by depositing the required amounts within the stipulated period. Despite this, the gold was not returned, leading to further orders from the Tribunal. The Collector of Central Excise did not challenge these orders, rendering them final and binding.The Union Government contended that the petitioner did not deposit the entire redemption fine within the stipulated period and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass subsequent orders. However, the Court found that the petitioner had complied with the Tribunal's directions, and the Collector was bound by the Tribunal's orders. The Court rejected the Union Government's arguments regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the deposit of the redemption fine. The Court also dismissed the argument that the non-inclusion of another party in the proceedings was fatal to the petition, as the necessary parties were already involved in the appeal.Furthermore, the Court addressed the Union Government's argument regarding a pending criminal proceeding and its connection to the gold confiscation orders. The Court held that the criminal case did not affect the delivery of the confiscated gold as per the Tribunal's order. The pendency of the criminal case did not disentitle the petitioner from receiving the gold. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, issuing a writ of mandamus to deliver 250 grammes of gold to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of the writ, in accordance with the Tribunal's order. The writ application was allowed with costs, and a hearing fee was assessed.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the petitioner's right to receive the confiscated gold as per the Tribunal's orders, emphasizing the binding nature of the Tribunal's decisions on the concerned authorities and dismissing the Union Government's objections regarding the redemption fine, jurisdiction of the Tribunal, inclusion of parties, and the impact of the pending criminal case on the gold delivery.