1984 (12) TMI 176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 29-4-1981 confiscated 63.600 grams of gold under section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, with an option to M/s. Bharat Jewellery House to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,500. A personal penalty of Rs. 1,500 was imposed on the appellant for contravention of the Sections 8, 31, 33 and 55 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and Rules 11 and 154 of the Gold Control (Forms, Fees and Miscellaneous Matters) Rules, 1968. The Appellate Collector reduced the personal penalty from Rs. 1500 to Rs. 500. 3. The facts of the case are as follows : The appellant is a gold dealer, having his business under the name and style M/s. Bharat Jewellery House at 257, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. On 22-8-1980 the appellant who is a partner in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in his register for the same. Shri Bodh Raj (B.B. Gupta) gave a statement that the old gold ornaments belonged to him and that the same were given to the appellant for repairs. Since the wages could not be settled, the ornaments remained with the appellant. The Assistant Collector held that the explanation offered by the appellant could not be accepted and imposed a personal penalty as pointed out above. The Appellate Collector confirmed the findings but reduced the penalty. 4. Shri Daya Sagar, Consultant appeared for the appellant while Shri J.P. Anand, JDR for the department. 5. Shri Daya Sagar mainly pointed out that no show cause notice was issued to Shri Nanak Chand or Shri Bodh Raj Gupta or Shri Satish Kumar as required un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....egard to these ornaments, the Appellate Collector has mainly relied on the presumption contained under section 33 of the Gold (Control) Act. According to that section, no licensed dealer shall keep in the premises where he carries on business, as such a dealer, any primary gold, article, or ornament which is not a part of his stock-in-trade. There is also a presumption that the primary gold or ornament shall be deemed to be part of the stock of such dealer. This section has to be applied in the light of the explanation offered by the appellant regarding the possession of the ornaments. In the absence pf any acceptable or reasonable explanation, the authorities can act on the presumption that the offending ornaments formed part of the stock-....