TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (8) TMI 99
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 10/18th June, 1974 confiscating gold bangles found in possession of Petitioner No. 1, and also, imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- each on petitioners 1, 2 and 3. 2. The Central Excise Officer Bangalore seized 82 gold bangles on 16th December, 1970 from the baggage of Petitioner No. 1. After issuing show cause notice to the Petitioners, the Collector held that the seized gold bangles were not ornaments and that they were primary gold. He ordered them to be confiscated and also imposed penalty on the Petitioners. Appeal against that order was rejected by the Administrator. On a revision petition, the Central Government directed the Administrator that the appeal be heard and decided de novo after examination of the case propert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....strate found that the bangles are of purity of 24 carats but they are ornaments and that the prosecution failed to prove that the seized bangles are primary gold. Therefore, by order made on 29th March, 77 (Annexure F), the Magistrate acquitted the Petitioners and ordered that the seized bangles be returned to Petitioner No. l. Appeal was preferred against the order of the Magistrate directing return of bangles to the Petitioner but not against acquittal. This is clear from the judgment dated 9th December, 1977 (Annexure G) of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, who reversed the order of the Magistrate directing return of the bangles and allowed the appeal. The High Court of Karnataka did not interfere in revision against the ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned Notice dated 21st July, 1980 in purported exercise of powers under Section 82(2) of the Act, calling upon the Petitioner to show cause why the order of the Administrator should not be annulled or modified. Relevant part of the Notice read as under :- "Whereas the Government of India by virtue of powers conferred under Section 82(2) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 examined the case records as also the impugned gold bangles with a view to satisfy itself about the correctness, legality and propriety of the above said order of the Gold Control Administrator; and whereas on such examination the Government is tentatively of the view that on the facts and evidence brought on record, there may be justification to annul or modify the order of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... foreign origin". This material was not before the Administrator when he made the order dated 13th December, 1979. It was open to the concerned authorities to get the seized gold bangles tested by the Master of Mint at the proper stage. They chose to get them tested by Mr. H.L. Acharya, and also, relied on his testimony during the adjudication proceedings as well as at trial before the Magistrate. On that evidence, the Magistrate acquitted the Petitioners of the charge of violating Section 8(1) of the Act. That finding was not challenged. No appeal was preferred against it. It became final. The Administrator also acted upon it, apart from independent appreciation of the testimony of H.L. Acharya before the Collector and reliance on his own ....