NATHULAL AGGARWALLA Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an agriculturist and a pawn-broker, seeks a writ or an order in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the original order dated 10-8-1973 (Annexure 4) of confiscation and penalty, passed by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise (opposite party No. 1) and the appellate and revisional orders (Annexures 11 and 12 respectively) and for a writ or an order in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to return the gold seized.

(2.) The petitioner has urged that he is the karta of a large Mitakshara family and is carrying on business as a pawnbroker and is also an agriculturist. In course of the business, he and members of his family owned and possessed gold. On 28-10-1969 the staff of the Central Excise Department searched the business and residential premises of the family and seized, as per the allegation, primary gold, gold coins and gold ornaments. According to the petitioner, the seizure was illegal and unwarranted in law.

(3.) Mr., R. Mohanty learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that adjudication proceeding under Chapter XIV of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was not initiated by giving a notice in writing within six months from the date of seizure of the gold. The extension of time on various occasions for showing cause was made ex parte without hearing the petitioner. He has further asserted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the gold seized on 28-10-1969 was not liable to be seized or confiscated.