Jurisdiction under the Gold (Control) Act failed without valid notification, but return of seized gold was also set aside.

Jurisdiction to adjudicate confiscation and impose penalty under the Gold (Control) Act depended on valid Central Government authorisation under Section 78(b); the Additional Collector could act only within the limits and period set by notification, and the later adjudication was therefore without jurisdiction. The court upheld that invalidity. The consequential direction to return the seized gold was unsustainable because no such relief had been sought and the respondents had denied ownership and possession of the gold. The proper course, if permissible, would have been fresh proceedings rather than unconditional release. That direction was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Additional Collector of Central Excise had jurisdiction under Section 78(b) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 to adjudicate confiscation and impose penalty. (ii) Whether the direction to return the seized gold to the respondent could be sustained after the adjudication order was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the Additional Collector of Central Excise had jurisdiction under Section 78(b) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 to adjudicate confiscation and impose penalty.

Analysis: Section 78(a) empowered a Gold (Control) Officer not below the rank of Collector of Central Excise or Customs to adjudge confiscation and impose penalty without limit, while Section 78(b) enabled other officers to exercise the power only if specifically authorised by the Central Government within prescribed limits. The relevant notifications showed that the Additional Collector could exercise such authority only up to 6 June 1984, and thereafter the post was omitted from the notification. The adjudication order was passed later, so the authority lacked the requisite jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The finding that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction was correct and was upheld, against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the direction to return the seized gold to the respondent could be sustained after the adjudication order was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The respondents had not sought a prayer for return of the gold. They had also consistently denied ownership and possession of the seized gold. In that position, the presumptions and remedial provisions relied upon to justify release of the gold did not assist them. Once the adjudication order was set aside for want of jurisdiction, the proper course would have been fresh proceedings if permissible, not an unconditional direction to return the gold.

Conclusion: The direction to return the gold to the respondent was unsustainable and was set aside, in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional invalidity of the confiscation and penalty order was maintained, but the consequential direction for return of the seized gold was annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Authority to adjudicate confiscation and penalty under the Gold (Control) Act depended on valid statutory authorization by the Central Government notification, and a court cannot grant return of seized property as consequential relief when such relief was neither prayed for nor supported by an asserted claim of ownership or possession.

---