TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (3) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved from the G.P.O. Amritsar an insured post parcel bearing No. 772, dated 24th November, 1966. This parcel is stated to have been sent to it by M/s. Chandra Kant K. Shah, Licensed Gold Dealers, 189, Mumba Devi Road, Bombay. The parcel is stated to have contained old gold ornaments in the shape of 12 bangles and 1 ring and weighed approximately 550 grams. According to the petitioner these ornaments were covered by sale Bill No. 411, dated 24th November, 1966. 3. On 5th December, 1966 the delivery of this parcel was taken but the same was seized by the Customs Officers under the Provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. On 8th April, 1976 the petitioner received a show cause notice from the Superintendent. Customs (Prevention). Amritsar ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ornaments mentionedas bangles).Under the circumstances of the case Government of India do not consider that the illicit nature of the gold and ornaments has been established. In view of the foregoing Government of India allow the revision application and direct that the consequential relief be granted to the petitioners." 7. While proceedings under the Customs Act.were going on the petitioner received a Show Cause Notice dated 2nd August, 1968 from the Assistant Collector of Customs, Amritsar purported to have been issued under the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963. The relevant terms of the show cause notice are. as follows :- "Whereas it appears that M/s Lal Chand Tilak Raj of Amritsar, and Chandra Kant K. Shah, of Bombay,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 1000/- in addition to the confiscation of the gold was ordered. The case of the petitioner before the Deputy Collector had been that the goods were covered by a bill and, therefore, there was no basis for the issuance of the said show cause notice. 9. The petitioner then filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Deputy Collector of Customs, By order dated 22nd June, 1971, the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh rejected the appeal by observing that the voucher No. 411 dated 24th November, 1966 pertaining to the purchase of the aforesaid gold was produced by the petitioner on 7th December, 1966 whereas the seizure had been effected on 5th December, 1966. 10. The petitioner then filed a revision petition against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the items were unfinished they had been correctly considered to fall outside the purview of 'ornaments' as defined under the Defence of India Rules, under which only an article which is in a finished form, fit for use as personal adornment, could be so classified. Further it is observed that Shri Janak Raj himself had stated that they had ordered for the items so as to make new ornaments out of them, which when coupled with high purity of the items, indicates that these were not being ordered for sale as ornaments as such. The crudity of the items was further confirmed by the adjudicating officer who examined them. For the foregoing reasons, the charge against the applicant is satisfactorily established and the Collector's order in appeal i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing by the learned Appellate Collector of Customs, Delhi, in connection with our appeal pending with him in this case. During the coarse of this persona hearing we had occasion to refer to the bill seized by the Customs Deptt; Amritsar along with the relevant gold ornaments. The original bill issued by our suppliers in this case was very much in existence on the learned Collector of Customs file which can be verified by Your Honour." If the Central Government had come to the conclusion that the aforesaid contention of the petitioner, namely, the bill was seized by the Customs Department, Amritsar along with the relevant gold ornaments, was incorrect, only then penalty could have been levied and goods ordered to be confiscated under the D....