UTKAL JEWEL HOUSE Vs. SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE
LAWS(ORI)-1988-7-8
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on July 26,1988

Utkal Jewel House Appellant
VERSUS
Special Secretary To The Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BADRI PRASAD VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD YUNUS VS. MOHAMMAD MUSTAQIM [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K.P.MOHAPATRA, J. - (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.
The Collector, Central Excise (opposite party No. 3) passed the order (annexure 5) confiscating the seized primary gold and gold ornaments under Section 71 and imposed penalty of Rs. 3,000 on each of the partners of petitioner No. 1 firm and Rs. 1,000 on K. Satyanarayana Rao under Section 74 of the Act. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Gold Control Administrator (opposite party No. 2), but without any success. As would appear from the order (annexure 6), they preferred a revision before the Government of India which was disposed of by order, annexure 7, by opposite party No. 1 rejecting the same. These authorities concurrently found that the primary gold and gold ornaments were seized from the petitioners' possession at the raided premises and that they had no licence or other authority to possess and carry on business in such goods.

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


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.