UTKAL JEWEL HOUSE Vs. SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have challenged the orders under annexures 5, 6 and 7 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, the Gold Control Administrator and the Special Secretary to the Government of India, the original, appellate and revisional authorities, respectively, under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act').

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the officers of the Central Excise raided the premises of the petitioners on June 18, 1969, and June 30, 1969, where they carried on business in gold and jewellery and seized a huge quantity of primary gold with foreign markings, gold ornaments and documents showing, unauthorised transactions in gold and jewellery as per panchanama (annexures 1 and 2). When notices to show cause were issued to them, they submitted their explanations stating therein that the petitioners had taken on rent the ground floor of a building belonging to one K. Satyanarayana Rao who was also having business in gold and jewellery in the ground floor of the same premises. He closed down his business and went away to Madras. The first floor of the building was taken on rent by P. Buchibabu Patro, father of the partners of petitioner No. 1 firm. K. Satyanarayana Rao had an iron chest in his business premises. All the gold and ornaments that were seized by the officers of the Central Excise were from the iron chest in the ground floor and the business premises in the first floor of the building, suggesting thereby that the seizure of primary gold with foreign markings and gold ornaments were not seized from the petitioners, but from the possession of K. Satyanarayana Rao and P. Buchibabu Patro. By this way, the petitioners disowned their liability.

(3.) THE opposite parties did not file their counter affidavits.