1986 (8) TMI 251 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns penalty for gold possession due to lack of evidence and burden of proof oversight.

The tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 74 of the Gold Control Act, 1968, for possession of primary gold without ... Gold - Penalty Issues:Appeal against penalty under Section 74 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 based on possession of primary gold without satisfactory explanation and intention to deliver gold to the appellant.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 74 of the Gold Control Act, 1968, based on the possession of primary gold without a satisfactory explanation and the alleged intention to deliver the gold to the appellant. The Central Excise Officers intercepted four individuals at a hotel room, where a significant quantity of primary gold was recovered from two of them. One of the individuals stated that the gold was intended for the appellant. The appellant's counsel argued that there was no concrete evidence connecting the appellant to any offense, emphasizing that mere statements were insufficient to establish guilt under the law.The appellant's counsel contended that the absence of substantial evidence linking the appellant to the gold or any offense rendered the case against the appellant weak. The only evidence presented was the statement of one individual suggesting that the gold was meant for the appellant. The counsel highlighted that the appellant's association with the individual in the past should not be the basis for presuming guilt in the current situation.Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented, the tribunal found a lack of legal evidence connecting the appellant to any offense related to the seized gold. The tribunal criticized the adjudicating authority for erroneously stating that the appellant had not proven innocence, emphasizing that the burden of proof lay with the department. The tribunal emphasized that suspicion, even if strong, could not replace concrete proof. Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the charge against the appellant had not been substantiated, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.