Appellate powers cannot revive a dead issue; confiscation and penalty for primary gold possession were sustained with reduced redemption fine.

An appellate authority cannot suo motu revive and remand an issue that was not pending before it and had not been brought up through the prescribed revisional mechanism; its powers to confirm, modify, annul or remand extend only to matters actually in appeal. On the contravention under the primary gold possession provision, admission of possession and a guilty plea sustained confiscation and penalty. The redemption fine was moderated because the quantum had not been separately fixed, while the penalty was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the lower appellate authority could, in an appeal confined to the finding under Section 6(2), suo motu revive the exoneration under Section 27(1) and remand that issue for fresh adjudication; (ii) Whether the appellant was liable to confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty for contravention under Section 8(1).

Issue (i): Whether the lower appellate authority could, in an appeal confined to the finding under Section 6(2), suo motu revive the exoneration under Section 27(1) and remand that issue for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The appeal before the lower appellate authority challenged only the finding under Section 6(2). The adjudicating authority had already exonerated the appellant under Section 27(1), and the department had not invoked its revisional power under Section 82(2) to bring that finding before the appellate authority. An appellate authority may confirm, modify, annul, or remand only an issue that is actually pending before it. A dead issue, not raised by the appellant and not carried in review by the department, cannot be resurrected suo motu for remand.

Conclusion: The remand on the Section 27(1) issue was without jurisdiction and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was liable to confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty for contravention under Section 8(1).

Analysis: The appellant had admitted possession of primary gold and had pleaded guilty on the Section 8(1) charge. On that basis, the primary gold was liable to confiscation and the appellant was liable to penalty. As the quantum of fine had not been separately fixed, the redemption fine was suitably moderated having regard to the value of the gold.

Conclusion: Liability under Section 8(1) was sustained, the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 5,000, and the penalty of Rs. 2,000 was confirmed, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The order of remand on the revived Section 27(1) issue was invalid, but the finding of contravention under Section 8(1) was upheld with modification of the redemption fine and confirmation of the penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority cannot revive and remand an issue that is not pending before it and has not been brought up through the prescribed revisional mechanism; its powers to modify, annul, or remand operate only on matters properly in appeal.

---