TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (5) TMI 141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n upholding the penalty imposed on the applicant firm for non-maintenance of Registers, in view of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Manik Chand Paul and Others, 1984(18) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.) = A.I.R. 1984, Supreme Court, page 1249? (iii) As to whether the Tribunal is correct in law in upholding the imposition of penalty on the ground of non-writing of the registers up-to-date, when the original authority i.e. learned Collector had not imposed the penalty on this ground? 2. In order to appreciate the aforesaid questions raised by the applicant it is necessary to set out in brief the facts of the case which are as follows :- On 5-5-1985, Preventive Staff of Central Excise Division, Ludhiana, visited the premises of the applicant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cept the plea of the applicant firm that their manager reached Ludhiana on 5-3-1985 only. The learned Collector found that contravention of Section 55 of the Gold (Control) Act was established in respect of the said ornaments purchased from M/s. Suman Jewellers, Delhi. As regards the remaining 42 pieces weighing 276.50 gms. received for polishing/repairs, the learned Collector ordered their release since the ownership of the various persons in respect of the 6 pcs. of gold ornaments was found to have been established during investigations. The Collector confiscated the gold ornaments weighing 617.150 gms. but gave an option to the applicant firm to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 4,000/-. The learned Collector also imposed a penalty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Advocate, I reduce the amount of penalty from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-." 3. First question raised by the applicant firm is not a question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order dated 25-2-1987. As discussed in the Tribunal's order (extracts reproduced above) Collector has imposed penalty not merely in respect of the ornaments purchased from M/s. Suman Jewellers, Delhi, confiscation of which has been set aside by the Tribunal but also because of non-writing of registers up-to-date and not mentioning the ornaments received for polishing/repairing in the register of repairs. Penalty has been imposed under Section 74 of the aforesaid facts and circumstances in this case. Rule 12 of the Gold Control (Forms, Fees and Miscellaneous Mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the aforesaid observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is observed that these observations cannot be applied to the facts of this case. Observations are applicable firstly to G.S. 11 and G.S. 12 registers and secondly to the circumstances that these two registers do not give a complete picture of the holding of gold at any time in the hands of the gold dealer. Facts involved in the instant case which has led to imposition of penalty on the applicant firm are different. These are non-writing of accounts at all in the G.S. 12 register by the applicant, firm. Observations of the Supreme Court do not indicate anywhere that the dealers are not required to maintain any account at all. Further, not making any entry in the register of repairs req....