K SATYANARAYAN SUBUDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner having obtained an order from the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short, the 'CEGAT') directing the central excise authorities to return the gold seized to the extent of 250 grammes to the petitioner and yet not having been able to obtain the gold in question, has been forced to approach this Court in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) IT is not necessary to traverse the entire gamut of facts leading to the order of the CEGAT. It will be sufficient for our purpose to notice that a confiscation proceeding was initiated in respect of 484 grammes of gold seized and the original authority directed confiscation of the said original authority, i.e. the Additional Collector of Customs and Central Excise by his order dated 11 -8 -1988 directed confiscation of the primary gold weighing 434.900 grammes under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/ - on Sri K Satyanarayana Subudhi (the present petitioner) and Rs. 1,000/ - on Sri Narasingha Gouda under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act. Against the said order, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal which was heard by the Collector of Appeals, Customs and Central Excise. The appellate authority agreed with the order of the original authority and dismissed the appeal by order dated 19 -6 -1989.

(3.) PURSUANT to the notice issued by this Court, the opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit and the stand taken in the counter affidavit is that as the petitioner did not deposit the entire amount of redemption fine within the stipulated period of three months from the date of receipt of the order, the petitioner is not entitled to got the gold in question and the gold becomes the property of the Union Government as confiscated gold. The further stand of the opposite parties in the counter of affidavit is that the Tribunal became functus officio after passing the order dated 19 -6 -1990 and did not retain any Jurisdiction to entertain any application filed by the petitioner and to issue any direction as contained in order dated 4 -8 -1992 and, therefore, the direction contained in the order dated 4 -8 -1992 is a nullity.