RAM WADHAYA Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts, in so far material, in this Appeal to the Gold Control Administrator, transferred to the Tribunal pursuant to Section 82 -K of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are -

(2.) IN the grounds of Appeal as well as in the submissions made by Shri R.L. Chandna, the learned Advocate for the Appellant, the adjudication order was impugned solely in regard to the findings on the alleged transactions in gold and gold ornaments reflected in the seized documents and the levy of fine of Rs. 5000/ - under Section 74 of the Act and not the seizure or confiscation subject to payment of fine of the gold or gold ornaments under Section 71 of the Act. It was submitted, inter alia, that -

(3.) SHRI Ramanathan, representing the Respondent, strongly supported the adjudication order and relied upon the Kanungo case to urge that in depart mental proceedings it was not necessary that witnesses should, necessarily, be offered for cross -examination, before their evidence could be relied or acted upon.