TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (6) TMI 188
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a penalty of Rs. 40,000 under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2.  On 13-2-1985, the officers of the Central Excise Department visited the residence of the appellant alongwith the officials of the Income-tax Department and found the appellant in possession of 6012.200 gms. of gold ornaments of 22 ct. purity. Since the appellant was found in possession of gold ornaments in excess of 4000 gms. in respect of which he had not filed any declaration in terms of Section 16 of the Act, the authorities effected seizure of 2013 gms. under mahazar as per law. The appellant gave a statement before the authorities that during 1975 he had given a declaration for about 3 Kgs. of gold ornaments un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use. Therefore, the appellant's major son, who is married and who is living with his wife, would constitute a family within the meaning of Section 16(6) of the Act and that unit would be entitled to possession of 4000 gms. and, therefore, the question of the appellant making any declaration does not arise at all. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the ratio of the ruling in the case of S. Champalal v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore [reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 159] of this Tribunal to which one of us has been a party. The learned counsel further submitted that the reasoning of the adjudicating authority in para 10, sub-clause (2) of the impugned order is incorrect on facts and in law. It was urged that the appellant had in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to set out certain facts, which are not, disputed or disputable. The fact that the appellant is living with his wife, mother-in-law, 2 married daughters and a major son, who is married, is not disputed before us. Under the provisions of the' Act, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the term "family" has been given a special statutory definition under Section 16(6) of the Act as consisting of - (i) the husband, wife and one or more minor children, or (ii) any two or more of them. In terms of Section 16(5), a family would be entitled to hold ornaments upto 4000 gms. The appellant, who was living with his wife, would constitute a family comprising himself, his wife and minor children. This unit, which wou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtha of Hindu undivided family comprising the various other members of the family, who by themselves would constitute different units of family within the meaning of Section 16(6) of the Act, as indicated above, the appellant cannot be fastened with any statutory obligation to make a declaration of the ornaments belonging to various other families. We are not inclined to countenance the submission of the learned Senior Departmental Representative, that even if the appellant were to hold temporary possession of the ornaments of other families, he would have to make a declaration as per law. In our opinion to adopt such a strict interpretation of the section would tantamount to putting it in a straight jacket as it were, rendering the very pr....