1995 (1) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d further levying a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- on one of the petitioners and Rs. 10,000/- on the other petitioner under Section 74 of the Gold Control Act. 2.The facts leading to the above confiscation are as follows : On 2-7-1984 the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalore Unit intercepted the first petitioner. A search of the first petitioner resulted in recovery of the subject gold bangles. Since the first petitioner was not a licenced gold dealer nor a certified gold-smith, the gold was seized under a mahazar. The explanation of the first petitioner was that he had come to Bangalore to see his sister and that his father, viz., the second petitioner is a gold dealer in Poona. According to the first petitioner, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d petitioner for the manufacture of the bangles. He was also not able to identify the bangles manufactured by him. The defence witness one Champalal Achaldas Bagla deposed that the bangles made out of gold with 99.5% purity are normally worn by the people in Maharashtra. He admitted that at the instance of the petitioners he had come to Bangalore to give evidence. It is on this evidence that the Collector came to the conclusion that the subject bangles were really primary gold and therefore, liable to be confiscated. Accordingly, he passed the order to which I have already made a reference. 4.When the matter came up before the Tribunal, the members of the Tribunal after hearing the arguments of both sides observed that they would render ....