TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (2) TMI 282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld Dealer at Tellicherry. Appellants Dayanandan and Monoharan are brothers and are certified goldsmiths. Appellant Sudhakaran is also a certified goldsmith. Appellant Nakulan is a claimant of a part of the jewellery under seizure in the case. 3. On 22-9-1986 at about 3.30 P.M., the Superintendent of Central Excise, Cannanore, alongwith his officers visited the business premises of appellant Chandukutty and verified the stock and accounts in the shop. The authorities during the course of search found a false cavity on the top of the door way to the inside room from the show room, which had been covered with thin plywood sheet and fixed with nails. The authorities found a plastic box inside the cavity after removing a nail and the same con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the inculpatory statement recorded from appellant Chandukutty immediately on seizure is neither voluntary nor true and was brought about under threat and coercion. It was further urged that the statement was subsequently retracted on 27-9-1986 and, therefore, no reliance can be placed without corroboration in material particulars. The learned Counsel further urged that the show cause notice in the present case has been issued by the Superintendent, which is not legally valid, and the Collector being the adjudicating authority, the Collector should have issued the show cause notice. A copy of the show cause notice has also not been forwarded to the Collector by the Superintendent. The learned Counsel contended that unless the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rding the other appellants, the learned Counsel contended that the charge is one of abetment and even the evidence on record shows that they made the claim to certain portions of the ornaments and even if their claims are found to be not acceptable or even false, that would not by itself prove the charge of abetment. 6. Heard Shri Bhatia, the learned Senior D.R. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. The fact that 627.500 gms. of gold and ornaments were seized by the authorities on 22-9-1986 from the licensed premises of Chandukutty is not disputed and it is indeed admitted. The question that falls for our consideration in the context is whether the evidence on record brings home the charges levelled against C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel that the show cause notice should have been issued either by the Collector or that the Collector should have been in possession of all the materials relating to investigation before the issuance of the show cause notice is not acceptable. To a specific query, the learned Counsel was not able to draw our attention to any particular section in the Act to that effect. On the contrary we find the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Manilal Bhanabhai Patel v. Kaul and Others, reported in AIR 1976 Gujarat 134, while dealing with the scope of Section 124 (a) and 122 of the Customs Act, 1962, has held that the issuance of a show cause notice is not part and parcel of adjudication proceedings and that the authority issuing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y for purposes of sale. On going through the nature of the ornaments, we find that they consisted of 19 chains, 28 studs, 5 necklaces, 15 lockets, etc. The ornaments indisputably are in trade quantities. By no strentch of imagination it can be contended that they represented the family ornaments of 2 certified goldsmiths. The learned Counsel urged that the old family ornaments were re-made into these new ornaments in trade quantities at the instance of Chandukutty. Excepting the mere ipse dixit on the part of the appellant no concrete evidence or proof has been given in this regard. The learned Counsel at our instance produced the G.S. 13 register relating to the said goldsmiths and the same also does not contain any particulars about the n....