Gold control confiscation fails where mere possession, vague notice, and no supporting evidence do not prove contravention.

Mere possession of gold jewellery was not enough to establish contravention under the Gold Control Act, 1968 where the show cause notice failed to specify the exact breach, the record disclosed no supporting evidence, and no lawful basis for seizure was shown. The adjudicating authority did not link the bangles to any unlawful transaction or identify material justifying reasonable belief for seizure. On that footing, confiscation and penalty could not be sustained and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of gold bangles and imposition of penalty were sustainable when the show cause notice did not specify any definite contravention, the record disclosed no supporting evidence, and the seizure was made on the basis of mere possession.

Analysis: The appeal turned on the absence of any proved contravention under the Gold Control Act, 1968. The notice merely alleged contravention of the Act in general terms and did not set out the nature of the breach or the relevant provision. The adjudication also failed to identify any evidence linking the appellant to an unlawful transaction or showing that possession of the bangles, by itself, amounted to a contravention. In the absence of any material to justify seizure on reasonable belief, the seizure and consequential confiscation could not be sustained. The facts recorded by the authority did not establish liability for penalty or confiscation.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere possession of gold jewellery does not constitute contravention under the Gold Control Act, 1968 in the absence of a specific allegation, supporting evidence, and lawful grounds for seizure.

---