1987 (2) TMI 215 - AT - Indian Laws

Tribunal dismisses appeal, upholds confiscation of gold due to lack of ownership proof. Redemption fine refunded.

The appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise was allowed, and the appeal and cross objection filed by S/Shri Suresh Chand Agnihotri and Mahesh ... Gold - Confiscation and redemption fine Issues Involved:1. Limitation of the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise.2. Legality of confiscation of the seized gold.3. Ownership of the seized gold.4. Jurisdiction and correctness of the Collector (Appeals)'s order.5. Validity of the redemption fine imposed by the Collector (Appeals).Detailed Analysis:1. Limitation of the Appeal Filed by the Collector of Central Excise:The primary issue raised by the appellants was that the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise was barred by limitation as it was filed after the statutory period of three months. The Collector filed the appeal on 21-12-1984, while the order-in-appeal was communicated on 24-9-1984. The appellants argued that the Collector should have received the order around 31-8-1984, making the appeal late. However, the Collector's office stated via an affidavit that the order was received on 24-9-1984, and the appeal was filed within the statutory period. The Tribunal accepted the affidavit and held that the appeal was filed within the statutory period and was legally valid.2. Legality of Confiscation of the Seized Gold:The Tribunal examined whether the confiscation of the seized gold was legal. The gold was seized from Shri Vijay Kumar's premises, who denied ownership. S/Shri Suresh Chand Agnihotri and Mahesh Chand Agnihotri claimed the gold as their father's, Shri Ram Jiwan Agnihotri. The Tribunal referenced the case of Jeewan Lal K. Jain, which held that a show cause notice should be issued to the owner only after the adjudicating officer is satisfied that the seized goods belong to someone other than the person from whom they were seized. In this case, the adjudicating officer was not satisfied with the ownership claim by the Agnihotris and thus issued the notice to Shri Vijay Kumar. The Tribunal found the confiscation under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act to be correct in law.3. Ownership of the Seized Gold:The ownership of the seized gold was a critical issue. The Additional Collector found no conclusive evidence that Shri Ram Jiwan Agnihotri was the owner. The Tribunal noted the delay in the claim by the Agnihotris and the lack of immediate action by Shri Ram Jiwan Agnihotri. The Tribunal agreed with the Additional Collector's observation that the silence and delayed claim indicated a lack of genuine ownership. The Tribunal concluded that the ownership of the seized gold was not established.4. Jurisdiction and Correctness of the Collector (Appeals)'s Order:The Tribunal examined the jurisdiction and correctness of the Collector (Appeals)'s order, which had ordered the release of the seized gold to the Agnihotris on payment of a redemption fine. The Tribunal found that the Collector (Appeals) based his decision on a misconception that the Additional Collector had accepted the gold initially belonged to Shri Ram Jiwan Agnihotri. The Tribunal held that the Collector (Appeals) erred in his conclusion and that the order was not supported by the findings of the Additional Collector.5. Validity of the Redemption Fine Imposed by the Collector (Appeals):Under Section 73 of the Gold (Control) Act, the adjudicating officer may impose a redemption fine if the ownership of the confiscated gold is established. In this case, since the ownership was not established, the Tribunal found the Collector (Appeals)'s order to release the gold on payment of a fine to be contrary to the law. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) and restored the order of the Additional Collector, which had confiscated the gold absolutely.Conclusion:The appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise was allowed, and the appeal and cross objection filed by S/Shri Suresh Chand Agnihotri and Mahesh Chand Agnihotri were dismissed. The redemption fine of Rs. 16,000/- deposited by the appellants was ordered to be refunded to them forthwith.