PREM NATH KHANNA Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner, a licensed gold dealer, was served with the impugned notice under Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (the 'Act' in short) within six months of the seizure of the gold ornaments in question from his possession. The petitioner claims the return of the gold ornaments seized from him on 22.4. 1 986 on the ground that no notice under Section 79 of the Act was given to him within six months of the date of the seizure of the gold ornaments.

(2.) That the gold ornaments were seized from the petitioner on 22.4.1986 is not disputed. The only dispute is whether the notice under Section 79 of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the seized ornaments be not confiscated was served on him on or before October 21, 1986. The said notice is stated to have been served by refusal by one Subodh Khanna, the brother as well as an employee of the petitioner concern as well as by affixation on the notice board of the Gold (Control) Officer.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that in the first place Subodh Khanna had not refused to accept the notice and secondly, service of notice on Subodh Khanna could not be treated as valid service on the petitioner, Subodh Khanna being neither the agent of the petitioner nor having been authorised to accept the notice on his behalf.