1985 (8) TMI 202 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Reduces Redemption Fine & Penalties, Upholds Charges for Non-Declaration of Gold

The Tribunal reduced redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellants under the Gold (Control) Act. It upheld charges for non-declaration of gold ... Gold - Non-declaration of - Confession Issues Involved:1. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty2. Non-Declaration of Gold under Section 16(7) of the Gold (Control) Act, 19683. Procedural Fairness and Principles of Natural Justice4. Specificity of Charges and Evidence5. Impact on Renewal of LicenseDetailed Analysis:1. Imposition of Redemption Fine and PenaltyThe Additional Collector of Customs, Cochin, imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- each on the appellants under Sections 73 and 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, respectively. The appellants contested these penalties, leading to multiple appeals and a writ petition. The Tribunal ultimately reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 10,000/- and the penalty to Rs. 100/- for Sadananda Pai, while exonerating the other appellants.2. Non-Declaration of Gold under Section 16(7) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968The appellants were found in possession of 1263 grams of gold, which was not declared as required by Section 16(7) of the Act. The appellants argued that a portion of this gold was gifted during family ceremonies and should be exempt. The Tribunal acknowledged the gift of seven sovereigns and other ornaments but found that the appellants failed to declare the remaining gold within the stipulated time. The Tribunal held that the charge of contravention under Section 16(7) was substantiated by the voluntary admission of Sadananda Pai.3. Procedural Fairness and Principles of Natural JusticeThe appellants contended that procedural lapses, such as not summoning personal diaries of the inspectors and not providing a copy of the mahazar, violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found these arguments unconvincing, noting that the appellants had cross-examined the officers and were aware of the contents of the mahazar through the show cause notice. The Tribunal concluded that there was no significant prejudice against the appellants.4. Specificity of Charges and EvidenceThe appellants argued that the charges were vague and did not specify the individual offenses committed by each appellant. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that the appellants, being partners and residing in the same house, were collectively responsible for the non-declaration. The Tribunal found the evidence, including the voluntary statement by Sadananda Pai, sufficient to uphold the charges.5. Impact on Renewal of LicenseThe Tribunal opined that the technical breach of Section 16(7) should not affect the renewal of the appellants' license, considering the long-standing and unblemished record of their gold business. The Tribunal emphasized that the contravention, dating back to 1974, should not be a ground for non-renewal of the license at this point in time.ConclusionThe Tribunal's judgment addressed multiple issues, including the imposition of fines and penalties, procedural fairness, specificity of charges, and the impact on the appellants' business license. The Tribunal reduced the penalties, acknowledged certain procedural lapses but found them non-prejudicial, and ultimately upheld the charges under Section 16(7) while ensuring that the appellants' license renewal would not be adversely affected by this historical contravention.