1986 (10) TMI 141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Excise, Cochin dated 18-6-1985 absolutely confiscating 22 gold coins (sovereigns) weighing 172 gms., besides a penalty of Rs. 1000/- imposed on appellant Govinda Rao under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The first appellant, Govinda Rao, is the father and appellant Smt. Lalitha Prasad (No. 169/86) is the daughter and the other appellants are appellant Govinda Rao's sons. 2. On the basis of information received from the Chief Enforcement Officer, Directorate of Enforcements, Trivandrum, the Inspector of Central Excise, C.I.U., Cochin along with his party searched the residence of appellant Govinda Rao at door No. XXXV/1164, Diwan's Road, Cochin on 29-9-1983 at about 12.10 p.m. and r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction 16(5)(b) of the Act if an individual owns or possesses both articles and ornaments not exceeding 4,000 gms., no declaration need be made and in the instant case even if Govinda Rao is held to be the individual owner of the coins under seizure, having regard to the fact that 835 gms. of gold ornaments were also found along with the coins, the coins are not liable to seizure and confiscation on the ground of non-declaration. The learned counsel, to substantiate his plea, placed reliance on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sahib Dayal and Asha Rani v. Union of India and others - reported in 1983 E.L.T. 75 (P&H). The learned counsel also placed reliance on the Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... have carefully considered the submissions of the parties herein. The question of law that arises for my consideration in the appeals is whether any declaration in terms of Section 16(1) of the Act is called for in the present case where admittedly appellant Govinda Rao was in possession of 22 gold coins (sovereigns) totally weighing 172 gms. and 835 gms. of gold ornaments. In order to better appreciate the legal question arising for determination I am extracting the relevant portion of the Act hereunder. Section 16(5)(a) reads - "No declaration referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall be required to be made, - (a) in relation to articles, unless the total weight of articles owned, possessed, held or controlled by, - ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....attracted, the limit on the weight of the gold articles provided in Section 16(5)(a) would not be applicable and that there is no justification for importing the limit of Section 16(5)(a) in Section 16(5)(b) of the Act. The Calcutta High Court in the ruling reported in AIR 1977 Calcutta 468 in the case of 'Jay Krishna Saha and another v. D.N. Lal and others' held that reading of, "the provisions of Sec. 16(5) of the Act, with Section 16(6) thereof, they seem to contemplate two classes of families. One class of family are those who own only 'articles'. The ceiling in such a case would be 50 grammes. Any holding in excess of 50 grammes will have to be declared before the authorities. The second class of family contemplated by those provisi....