(1.) The petitioner herein A. Gangadhar Sa has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance in Order No. 567/78, dt. 29/12/1978 dismissing the revision petition filed by him and three others against the order of the Collector of the Central Excise, Hyderabad in Order No. II/3/132/76-Gold, dt. 28-1-1977 confirming the order of the Deputy Collector, Central Excise, Hyderabad dated 16-8-1976 whereunder he directed the confiscation of the three items of gold. The Government of India however set aside the penalty imposed on the revision petitioners and gave option to them to redeem the gold on payment of a fine of Rs. 18,000.00.
(2.) The relevant facts are as follows :- On 28-5-1975, the officers of the Central Excise, Headquarters, Gold Cell, Hyderabad visited the money lending shop of the writ petitioner Aljapuram Gangadhara Sa at Armoor in Nizamabad District and seized 713.500 grams of primary gold and gold ornaments for contravention of provisions of Gold (Control) Act, 1968. It appears that the gold seized included primary gold on the security of which the petitioner had advanced loans to Sarvasri Yellaturi Chinnodu, Mittapalli Chinnolla Muthanna, Gididi Mallaiah and Baddam Mallubhai. A show cause notice dated 15-8-1975 was issued to the petitioner and the persons who has pledged the gold with the petitioner alleging that they had contravened the provisions of Sections 8(1) and 10(a) of the said Act and that, therefore, seized gold was liable to be confiscated.
(3.) The petitioner herein sent a reply on 25-9-1975 stating that he was doing business as a money lender at Armoor advancing money on pledge of gold and silver ornaments and that he was submitting regular returns to the Gold Control Authorities. With regard to seized ornaments he stated that the kadiams which bore identification chits of the owners were ornaments which are worn by stretching them and, therefore, the ends of the said ornaments would never be joined, and that such kadiams would be presented at the time of the marriage, to girls who are usually married at very young age and that they would be worn when they grow up. The trade panel constituted for inspecting the said seized ornaments examined the ornaments and opined that they were ornaments and that, therefore, there was no contravention of the provisions of Sections 8 and 10 of the said Act. The petitioner and the other owners were given a personal hearing and they were represented by a consultant. The Deputy Collector on a consideration of the evidence adduced before him and the opinion of the trade panel came to the conclusion that there was no reason to doubt the bona fides of the petitioner who advanced the loans to the person on the security of the gold offered by them and that it could not be said that the petitioner had acquired the gold for his own use or for putting in trade circulation. He then considered the question whether the various items of gold seized were gold ornaments of primary gold. In the light of the evidence produced before him he came to the conclusion that items No. 1(a), 3 and 4(a) of the items in the list of the seized articles did not have the appearance of the finished ornaments, but their ends showed signs of cutting and that in fact they presented the appearance of crude gold ornaments in semi-finished condition, notwithstanding their six sided shape. On those findings, the Deputy Collector ordered the confiscation of the four items of gold listed at Sl. Nos. 1(a), 3 and 4(a) having a net weight of 231.500 grams, 57,800 grams and 99.800 grams respectively. He also imposed under S. 74 of the said Act penalties of Rs. 500.00 on the petitioner and Rs. 300.00 Rs. 100.00 and Rs. 200.00 on the owners of the said items which were ordered to be confiscated.