1987 (5) TMI 141 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upheld Penalties for Register Non-Compliance

GOEL JEWELLERS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH

GOEL JEWELLERS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH - 1987 (30) E.L.T. 757 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Imposition of penalty under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act for not making entries in the Register of Repairs.2. Upholding of penalty for non-maintenance of registers based on a Supreme Court judgment.3. Imposition of penalty for non-writing of registers up-to-date.Analysis:Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty under Section 74The case involved the seizure of unaccounted gold ornaments from the premises of the applicant firm during an inspection. The firm failed to maintain up-to-date registers as required by the Gold (Control) Act. The Collector imposed penalties under Section 74 for contraventions of Section 55, which mandates maintaining specific registers for repairs. The Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 1,000 considering the circumstances. The failure to make entries in the Register of Repairs attracted penalties under Sections 55 and 74, as per Rule 12 of the Gold Control Rules.Issue 2: Penalty Upheld Based on Supreme Court JudgmentThe applicant cited a Supreme Court judgment regarding the inadequacy of certain forms for maintaining accurate accounts of gold holdings. However, the Tribunal found this argument inapplicable to the case at hand. The Supreme Court's observations were specific to different registers and did not negate the obligation to maintain any accounts. The Tribunal concluded that the circumstances leading to the penalty on the applicant firm were distinct from those addressed in the Supreme Court judgment.Issue 3: Penalty for Non-Writing of Registers Up-to-DateThe third issue raised by the applicant firm questioned the imposition of penalties based on non-writing of registers up-to-date. The Tribunal clarified that this was not a legal issue but a factual matter. The allegation of non-writing of registers was not contested by the applicant before the Collector, leading to the imposition of penalties. The Tribunal held that since the applicant did not rebut the allegation, detailed discussion by the Collector on each aspect leading to the penalty was unnecessary.In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the reference application after analyzing the issues raised by the applicant firm. The judgment highlighted the legal obligations under the Gold (Control) Act regarding the maintenance of registers and the consequences of non-compliance. The penalties imposed were upheld based on the specific violations identified during the inspection and subsequent proceedings.