TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (7) TMI 225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000/- to Rs. 10,000/- and confirming the individual penalties imposed on the appellants Chandrasekhara Pai and C. Ratnakara Pai in a sum of Rs. 1000/- Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/- each for contravention of Section 16 (1), 16 (7), 16 (10), 16 (11), Section 38 and Section 55 of the Act. 2. Appellant Chandrasekhara Pai is the father of appellant Ratnakara Pai and both of them constitute the firm under the name and style of M/s. P.P. Chandrasekhara Pai & Sons, having a gold dealer's licence at Ernakulam, Cochin. On 8-2-1979, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ernakulam Division made a surprise visit to the licensed premises of the appellants as well as to their residence and during the search in the residence of the appellants the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00 gms., it was urged that they belonged to a goldsmith by name Chellappan Achari who pledged the same with appellant Chandrasekhara Pai for purposes of raising a loan and this factor having found acceptance at the hands of the original adjudicating authority, the authorities, it was contended should have exonerated the appellant of the charges. Finally, the learned Counsel submitted that even if the appellants are held to have contravened, the provisions of the Act, the contravention would only be technical in the circumstances of this case warranting a lenient view being taken with reference to the quantum of redemption fine as well as penalty. 4. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the statement recorded from a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Ratnakara Pai on 19-3-1979 should be deemed to be one made on behalf of the father. Even here, one would find that there is no explanation for such a belated retraction even by the son. In the circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the statement recorded from appellant Chandrasekhara Pai and referred to supra is voluntary and true and is entitled to consideration and weight. 6. Regarding the plea of the learned Counsel that items 1, 3 and 8 listed in the mahazar and weighing 83.800 gms., belonged to the wife of appellant Ratnakara Pai, no evidence has been adduced to substantiate the same except a mere assertion on the part of the appellant. In the absence of any materials on record to prove the same, I am not inclined to acce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion, custody or control of the appellants in their capacity as dealers within the meaning of Section 38. I am not able to accept this contention of the learned counsel because Section 38 has to be read in conjunction with Section 56 and under Section 56 every licensed dealer shall furnish to the Administrator a return containing particulars of gold owned, possessed, held or controlled by him with reference to the quantity, description and other particulars and every such return shall be made in triplicate, of which one copy shall be authenticated and signed by the Gold Control Officer and thereafter returned to the dealer and the copy so returned shall be retained by the dealer as evidence of the return made by him under Section 56. Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erefore find that the charges of contravention levelled against the appellants have been clearly brought home and made out by the evidence on record. So far as the quantum of redemption fine and the penalty is concerned, it was urged that the appellant has never come in for adverse notice either before or after and appellant Chandrasekhara Pai has been in the business for over 50 years enjoying high reputation. The purity of the ornaments under seizure as evidenced by the mahazar is only 20 carat. Taking the purity of the ornaments under seizure and the value of the ornaments fixed at Rs. 24,000/- by the adjudicating authority and keeping in mind the clean antecedents of the appellants and their long number of years in gold business without....