AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (6) TMI 237
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs, licensed gold dealers, on 22-10-1982 in the presence of witnesses. The statutory account books of the firm were scrutinised. The balance as on 22-10-1982 was arrived at as follows :- G.S. 11 Register - Old Gold ornaments - Nil Standard Gold bars - 10,000 Gms. Primary Gold - Nil G.S. 12 Register - New Gold Ornaments (12 cts) - 308.800 gms. New Gold Ornaments (22 cts) - 9352.000 gms. Repairs Register - Then, a declaration regarding the stock-in-trade as on the same date was obtained from Shri Jhaverilal Popatlal Dedhia, a partner of the firm present in the shop. Thereafter, the stock-in-trade was weighed with the following results :- G.S. 11 Register - Old Gold ornaments - Nil Standard Gold - 10,000 gms. Primary Gold - 28.200 gms. G.S. 12 Register , New Gold Ornaments (12 cts) - 332.000 gms. New Gold Orna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght of the ornaments including weight of stones, gems, pearls but excluding weight of threads, lac and copper covered by gold sheet. The same position was explained in Trade Notice No. 5/75, dated 10-11-1975 issued by the Bombay Collectorate. As regards the primary gold weighing 28.200 gms. it was stated that in a stock of "10 kilogrammes, this difference could not be considered as excessive. It was further stated that if the inventory of the entire stock-in-trade was made in the Panchnama, then it would have been possible to prove the weight of plastic or ivory content of the bangles. 5. After considering the submissions made before him in writing and in the course of the personal hearing, the Collector passed the impugned order which is now under challenge before us. 6. Shri D.H. Shah, the learned Counsel for the appellants, made the following points before us in the course of the hearing :- (i) The seizure was, procedurally speaking, illegal since it did not comply with the requirements of law. It was incumbent on the part of the seizing officers to inventorize the articles in respect of which they believed the provisions of the Gold Control law had been viola....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ections. 8. The learned Departmental Representative Shri Krishan Kumar defended the Collector's order. He stated that the real question was whether the benefit of doubt should have been given by the Collector only in respect of 70 plastic/ivory bangles or in respect of 150 as claimed by the appellants. Shri Krishan Kumar stated that there was no basis for the statement that there were 150 bangles. The GS 12 Register does not throw any light on this aspect nor did the vouchers. 9. In his counter reply, Shri Shah stated that the Collector had not examined the vouchers, etc. In any case, the appellants could not have correlated them with the bangles. However, what was important was whether there were 150 bangles or not and this was borne out by the deposition of the investigating officer. The number taken as 70 was based on guess work. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions before us. Shri Shah vehemently contended before us that the seizure of the articles was riddled with irregularities and, therefore, it was illegal. It is true, as Shri Shah says, that the Panchnama does not make a distinction between gross weight and net weight. In fact, it would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or ornaments except those in respect of which the provisions of the Act are contravened. No substitute ornaments can legally by seized if the authorities fail to ascertain the particular ornaments in respect of which provisions of the Act are contravened. On an appeal being filed by the Government, the Division Bench of the Court upheld the above judgment and rejected the appeal. In the case before us, it is not stated clearly whether there was, in fact, any infringement of the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act. If the net and gross weights were ascertained separately, it is possible that the stock-in-trade of ornaments might have been found to tally with recorded balance. That this is so, is amply borne out by the Collector's order itself where he has conceded the appellants' contention that the weight of the plastic/ivory should not have been taken into consideration. The Collector further states that if the gross weight was to be taken, due allowance would have to be made for the weight of plastic/ivory. Otherwise, it would give a distorted version. On this basis, the Collector gave the benefit of doubt in the matter of gross weight in respect of 70 bangles. This has been ba....