- (1.) This writ petition is filed questioning the legality and validity at the order passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur on 27.5.1991 under the provisions of the Customs Act and the Gold Control Act.
(2.) On the basis of credible information received, the officers of D.R.I., New Delhi intercepted and searched the two petitioners on 11.10.1988 at Mathura Railway Station and recovered from them, in all, 100 foreign gold biscuits. Their statements were recorded on that occasion and subsequently their residential and business premises were also searched. On the basis of the material gathered a show cause notice was issued to both the petitioners on 29.3.1989 calling upon them to show cause why the said gold should not be confiscated and why the penalties should not be imposed under the aforesaid two enactments. In response to the show cause notice the petitioners submitted their explanations which were considered and under a very elaborate order, the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur passed the order, the operative portion of which reads thus: In view of above, I order absolute confiscation of the 100 foreign marked gold biscuits weighing 11,665 gms. under the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. I also order confiscation of both the brief cases along with cloth, and packing material under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. one lakh on Shri Hari Saran Verma and Rs. 50 thousand on Shri Roop Kishore Verma under the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. I also impose a penalty of Rs. one lakh on Shri Hari Saran Verma and Rs. 50 thousand on Shri Roop Kishore Verma under the provisions of Section 74 of the Gold Control Act, 1968. A personal penalty of Rs. 50 thousand is imposed on Shri Ganesh Lal s/o Chhanga Lal Jain for abetment under the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, and a penalty of Rs. 50 thousand is imposed on him under the provisions of Section 74 of the gold Control Act, 1968. The Gold (Control) Act, 1968 has since been repealed but continuity of action initiated earlier is saved by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
(3.) This writ petition was filed on 20.8.1991. The main contention urged by Sri Raj Pal, the learned Counsel for the petitioners runs thus: The Gold Control Act was a temporary enactment. It has since been repealed. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not apply to temporary enactments. There is nothing in the repealing Act keeping alive the pending proceedings. Therefore, all the proceedings pending under the Gold Control Act lapsed on the repeal of the Act. The petitioners accordingly are entitled to return of the gold. Indeed the very impugned order is void altogether.;