LAWS(MAD)-2000-9-25

R SRINIVASAN Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE MADRAS

Decided On September 12, 2000
R. SRINIVASAN Appellant
V/S
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL contends that the Gold (Control) Act, as it's name indicates, deals with gold and, therefore anything other than gold should be excluded while considering the obligations of persons under that Act.

(2.) THE petitioner was possessed of gold ornaments which exceeded in weight 4000 gms. A declaration in respect of such ornaments not having been made, and that fact having subsequently come to light, an order of confiscation had been made. By paying the redemption fine, the petitioner obtained the release of the ornaments, but questioned the confiscation and the levy of the redemption fine, as also the penalty, on the ground that the ornaments in question contained other stones and gems, and if the weight of those stones and gems were to be excluded, the weight of the ornaments would be less than 4000 gms., which would render Section 16 of the Gold (Control) Act inapplicable to the case of the petitioner.

(3.) NEITHER Section 16 of the Act, nor the definition clause provides for excluding the weight of the gem or pearl in the ornament while determining the quantity of four thousand grammes. An exemption clause is always required to be confined to the field for which it is specifically intended, as the exemption carves out a limited area from a larger area to which the provisions is applicable. The exemption provided in Section 16(5)(3)(b)(ii) of the Act does not provide for excluding the weight of gems or pearls while determining the weight of the articles and ornaments owned by the family.