Jurisdiction under the Gold (Control) Act and absolute confiscation of unlawfully possessed primary gold upheld, with penalty reduced.

A properly notified Central Excise officer could adjudicate confiscation and penalty under the Gold (Control) Act because the statutory scheme authorised a Gold Control Officer of the requisite rank to act without monetary limit. The jurisdictional objection therefore failed. On the merits, absolute confiscation of high-purity primary gold was sustained because the appellant was linked to its carriage and ownership and there was no contemporaneous statutory entry supporting lawful possession by a certified goldsmith. However, the penalty was found excessive on the facts and was reduced. The appeal was thus largely rejected, with limited relief only on penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Additional Collector of Central Excise had jurisdiction to adjudicate and impose confiscation and penalty under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. (ii) Whether absolute confiscation of the primary gold was justified and whether the penalty required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the Additional Collector of Central Excise had jurisdiction to adjudicate and impose confiscation and penalty under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

Analysis: The statutory scheme empowered a Gold Control Officer not below the rank of Collector of Central Excise or Collector of Customs to adjudge confiscation and impose penalty without limit. The notification issued under the Act treated the relevant officers of Central Excise as Gold Control Officers, and the Additional Collector was treated as falling within the rank and authority of Collector of Central Excise for this purpose. The adjudicating authority was therefore competent to deal with the matter.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection failed and was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether absolute confiscation of the primary gold was justified and whether the penalty required reduction.

Analysis: The gold was found to be primary gold of very high purity, the appellant was connected with its carriage and ownership, and there was no contemporaneous statutory entry supporting lawful possession by a certified goldsmith. In these circumstances, the tribunal declined to grant redemption of the seized primary gold and sustained absolute confiscation. At the same time, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the penalty was considered excessive and was reduced.

Conclusion: Absolute confiscation was upheld, but the penalty was reduced in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was substantially rejected on merits, while limited relief was granted by reducing the penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A properly notified and statutorily authorised Central Excise officer can adjudicate confiscation and penalty under the Gold (Control) Act, and absolute confiscation of unlawfully possessed high-purity primary gold may be sustained even where limited relief is warranted on penalty.

---