1985 (6) TMI 129 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Gold Confiscation, Appellants Fail to Prove Ownership

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of gold under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, as the appellants failed to prove third-party ownership. ... Gold - Confiscation and Seizure Issues Involved:1. Legality of confiscation of gold under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.2. Necessity of notice under Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.3. Credibility of the sale voucher and affidavits concerning ownership of the seized gold.4. Sustainability of the confiscation order.5. Applicability of Section 24 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.6. Transgression of Sections 8 and 55 read with Rule 13 of the Gold Control (Forms, Fees and Miscellaneous Matters) Rules, 1968.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Confiscation of Gold:The primary issue was whether the confiscation of gold was illegal due to the failure to afford an opportunity to the claimants to prove their ownership. The judgment emphasized that the burden of proving third-party ownership lies with the person from whose possession the gold was seized. The Collector and the Technical Member found the appellants' explanation unworthy of credence. The Third Member concurred, noting that neither M/s Talwar Jewellers nor the three ladies came forward to claim the seized gold. The gold was deemed to belong to the appellants, making the confiscation under Section 71 of the Act lawful.2. Necessity of Notice under Section 79:The judgment clarified that Section 79 requires notice to claimants only if there are actual claimants who have made a demand for their rights. Since neither M/s Talwar Jewellers nor the three ladies lodged any claim with the adjudicating authority, there were no claimants to whom notice under Section 79 needed to be issued. Thus, the non-issuance of notice did not render the confiscation illegal.3. Credibility of Sale Voucher and Affidavits:The appellants failed to produce credible evidence to support their claim that the seized gold belonged to third parties. The Collector and the Technical Member noted inconsistencies and improbabilities in the appellants' story, such as the absence of a voucher at the time of seizure and the lack of a corresponding voucher book. The Third Member agreed, emphasizing the dubious nature of the voucher and the improbability of the affidavits from the three ladies. The evidence on record did not support the appellants' claims of third-party ownership.4. Sustainability of the Confiscation Order:Given the findings on the previous points, the order of confiscation was deemed sustainable. The appellants' failure to establish third-party ownership and the lack of credible evidence meant that the confiscation order stood firm.5. Applicability of Section 24 of the Sale of Goods Act:The appellants' claim that the gold was brought on approval and thus not owned by them was dismissed. The judgment noted that this version was not satisfactorily established. Therefore, the provisions of Section 24 of the Sale of Goods Act, which deals with goods on approval, did not apply.6. Transgression of Sections 8 and 55 read with Rule 13:The appellants were found to have violated Section 55 of the Gold (Control) Act and Rule 13 of the Gold Control (Forms, Fees and Miscellaneous Matters) Rules, 1968, by failing to maintain the required statutory records. Although Section 8 was not directly applicable, the appellants' failure to maintain a 'Repair Register' justified the imposition of a penalty. The Third Member agreed with the Judicial Member's proposal to reduce the penalty from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 7,000.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the order of confiscation and the imposition of a penalty but reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 7,000. The judgment emphasized the necessity of credible evidence to support claims of third-party ownership and the importance of maintaining statutory records as required by law.