NIMAL CHARAN DAS Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application arises in the following circumstances. On 14. 11. 1970 the petitioner went to Bhadrak Post Office to collect a parcel. After he had received the parcel, Officers of the Central Excise Department asked him to open the parcel and in the presence of witnesses the officers seized 56 pieces of round gold welded rods weighing 1214. 500 grams in two packets covered with two Gujrati newspapers. A Panchnama was prepaed at the spot and handed over to the petitioner, vide Annexure -1. The statement made by the petitioner at the time of seizure is Annexure -2. His plea was that one of his friends in Bombay named Sangvi had sent gold ornaments to him and that he would make payment for the gold later on receipt of money from his grand -father. The Deputy Collector, Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, opposite party No. 1, asked the; petitioner to show cause why appropriate action should not be taken against him for contravention of the provisions contained in See. 8(1) of the Gold Control Act,196b (hereafter referred to as the 'Act' -), vide Annexure -3 dated 29. 4. 1968. A similar show -cause, notice was also issued by opposite party No. 1 to the petitioner's friend Sangvi at Bombay, vide Annexure -4. According to the petitioner, on 13. 10. 1972 a further notice was issued to him to show cause why the' seized gold should not be confiscated under Section 71 and penalty imposed under Section 74 of the Act. The petitioner filed show -cause pleading that he had not contravened any of the provisions of the Act and that no offence as alleged had been committed by him; Accordingly he prayed for release of the gold ornaments in his favour. By order, dated 24. 8. 1973, Annexure -5 opposite party No. 1 held that Sangvi, the so called friend of the petitioner, was a fictitious person and that, the seized gold was 'primary gold, under the Act. The gold was confiscated to the State under Section 71 of the Act. The petitioner appealed against the order of, opposite party No. 1, vide Annexure -6, the memorandum of appeal. The Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, opposite party No. 2, dismissed the appeal, vide Annexure -8, the order dated 1. 8. 1975, The petitioner filed a revision before the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Insurance, Government of India, opposite party No, 3, vide the revision petition Annexure -9. Opposite party No. 3 rejected the revision application, vide Annexure -10, the order, dated 1. 7. 1977. The finding of the opposite parties is challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground that there was no basis for them to hold that the seized bangles were never used as ornaments in the State of Orissa. It is also contended that the seized gold has been wrongly held to be 'primary gold' within the meaning of the Act. The petitioner has accordingly prayed that the orders as per Annexures -5, 8 and 10 should be quashed.

(2.) IN their counter the opposite parties have denied all the allegations of the petitioner. It is stated that during the inquiry the person described as Sangvi by the petitioner and whose address had been furnished by him could not be traced, thus leading to the conclusion that Sangvi was a fictitious person. The petitioner could not adduce any evidence to show valid acquisition of the seized gold. On proper scrutiny and examination the seized gold was held to be 'primary gold' and not 'ornaments' and as such rightly confiscated to the States.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that 50 pieces of gold articles weighing 1214.500 grams were seized from the petitioner by the Customs Officers on 14.11.1970. In the Panchnama, Annexure -1, the seized gold, is described as. gold round (circular) welded rods in the appearance of chudis. In the show -cause, Annexure -3, the said seized gold is described in the following manner :