KAMAVARAM VEERANNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
M.L.Jain, J. -
(1.)On 15.7.1967, the Inspector of Central Excise Gulbarga checked the petitioner Veeranna a licensed goldsmith (since then dead) and recovered from his person four Kadgas of gold weighing 40 tolas worth Rs. 7000.00 . His books of accounts were also seized on 21.11.1967. Veeranna deposed that the said Kadagas were got manufactured eight to ten years back by his father and that they were kept as heirloom. But he needed money and brought the Kadagas from Raichur to Gulbarga for sale. Since he could not sell them at the price which the Sarafs offered him, he was carrying them back home, when he was intercepted.
(2.). A notice was issued to him on 27.11.1967 stating that the petitioner had contravened the Rules 126-G(1), 126-H(1), 126H(2)(b) and 126-1(2)(g) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and directed him to show cause why a penalty under Rule 126L(l6) of the said Rules be not imposed and why the said gold be not confiscated under Rule 126M.
(3.). On 11-12-1967 deceased Veeranna replied that the Kadagas were prepared long before the Gold Control Rules were introduced and they were used as family ornaments and therefore they could not find place in his account books. His family consisted of II members and the amount of gold recovered from him was within the permissible limits. The Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, by his order dated 19-1-1968 rejected his plea because he should have given a declaration in January, 1963. Since such a declaration was not given, it cannot now be claimed as a family property. He examined the Kadagas and found that they were nothing but a rod of primary gold bent crudely into the shape of a circle to appear like kadagas. He, therefore, directed confiscation and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1000.00 . The Gold Control Administrator by order dated 29-11-1968 rejected his appeal. His revision application was rejected by the Government of India on 21-1-1970. These orders are challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner expired on 16-6-1982 and his legal representatives have been substituted in his place.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.