TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (11) TMI 180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Income-tax Officers conducted a search at Hotel Terminus at Ernakulam and recovered from the possession of one Harikrishnan, an occupant of Room No. 7 in the said hotel new gold ornaments and old gold ornaments in trade quantities. On receipt of this information from the Income-tax Department, the Central Excise authorities visited the hotel and then effected seizure of the old and new gold ornaments respectively 577.800 gms. and 3026.000 gms. from the possession of the said Harikrishnan. Harikrishnan gave a statement before the authorities immediately on seizure on 31-3-1984 that the gold ornaments were entrusted to him by his relative Smt. Lalitha Ramakrishnan for safe custody, on the eve of her departure to Bombay on 31st March, 1984. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the 'Rules', in respect of the said 3,142.000 gms. of new gold ornaments, which eventually resulted in the impugned order as against which the appeal arises. The appeal has been filed seeking absolute confiscation or enhancement of the quantum of fine and penalty as per law. 3. Shri Bhatia, the learned Senior D.R., submitted that in terms of Section 36 of the Act read with Rule 13 of the Rules the voucher should contain many particulars and in the present case the voucher does not contain the signature of the person to whom the new gold ornaments had been transferred by the respondent nor does it contain the purity of the ornaments and the respondent being a licensed gold dealer the lapse cannot be termed technical so as to warrant a le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n under the aforesaid voucher. Indeed the statements recorded from respondent Vasudevan and Ramakrishnan couple by the Authorities, which form part of the evidence on record, do evidence it and there is admittedly no evidence contra. I have also carefully gone through the Show Cause Notice issued and the Department has not leveled any accusation or allegation against the respondent Vasudevan anything else other than a breach of Section 36 read with Rule 13 of the Rules in the context of the aforesaid admitted facts. In this admitted situation the only relevant question that will have to be considered is whether respondent Vasudevan in issuing the voucher as per law has conformed to Rule 13 of the Rules and if there is any breach whether the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll the particulars such as serial number, date of issue, address of the dealer, address of the person to whom the voucher is issued and description of the ornaments and signature of the dealer. The only particulars which the voucher does not contain are the purity of the gold ornaments and the signature of the person to whom voucher has been transferred. It should be observed in this context that the Department has not at any point of time disputed or questioned the genuineness and authenticity of the voucher in question and admittedly there is no such allegation even in the Show Cause Notice. When the voucher issued under the rules contains all the important particulars enjoined on a licensed Gold Dealer the mere non-mention of the purity ....