COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Vs. GUNWANT LAL GODAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal has made this reference for an adjudication of the following questions of laws:-

(2.) Skipping unnecessary details, the facts necessary for the disposal of the reference in nub are stated as under. -

(3.) Way back in June, 1965, the Officers of the Collectorate of Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi, in pursuance of a secret information, conducted search and seized 240.040 kgs. of Gold from the residence of Chhanganlal Godawat on account of contravention of provisions of Rule 126-I of the erstwhile Defence of India Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as v Rules, 1962). Break up of 240..40.145 kgs of Gold is (i) Sovereigns of Gold 80.776 kgs; (ii) Passas of Gold 242 Nos., 75.298.300 kgs. (iii) Pieces of Gold bars 5 Nos., 10.975.845, (iv) Gold bars of 1917 and 1992 - 9 Nos., 72.990 kgs. Notice was issued to the respondent to show cause confiscation under Rule 126-M of the Rules, 1962.' Ultimately, the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi absolutely confiscated the goods under Rule 126-M of the v Rules, 1962 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs. Aggrieved with this order, Mr. Godawat filed an appeal before the Gold (Control) Administrator which was rejected. Thereafter, a revision application came to be filed before the Government of India. During the pendency of revision application, Mr. Chhagan Lal Godawat, the owner expired and his legal representatives came on record. However, revision application finally stood dismissed. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed by the legal representative of Late Chhagan Lal Godawat and this Court disposed of the writ petition on 9.8.1994 (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1215/1979) in the following terms:- "In my considered opinion, the denial of opportunity by the Collector vitiated the entire proceedings and the opportunity provided by the erstwhile Gold Control Administrator as well as by the Special Secretary, Finance exercising the powers of the Central Government was no substitute. As these provisions are stringent in nature and resulting in penal consequences, in my considered opinion, the matter deserves to be reexamined by the Collector, Central Excise & Customs after affording full opportunity to the petitioners in respect of exercise of option for getting the Gold redeemed as well as on the question of imposition of penalty as noticed above in the order. As a sequence the orders passed by the Collector dated 24.9.1996 (Annex. 1), the order dtd. 6.3.1972 passed by the Gold Control Administrator as well as the order dated 3/4.6.1979 passed by the Special Secretary, Finance, Government of India exercising the power of revision of the Central Government are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Collector, Central Excise & Customs, New Delhi to examine the matter afresh in the light of the observations made above after affording full opportunity to the petitioners. The parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi on 1.9.94 whereafter the Collector shall proceed with the case afresh and shall dispose of the matter within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order as indicated above. The matter has already been considerably delayed for over 30 years and any further delay would amount to denial of justice to the petitioners. It is further ordered that in the event of the appeal being filed by the aggrieved party to the Central Excise and Gold Control Tribunal, the Tribunal shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of filing of the appeal."