G.P. Mathur, J. - (1.) The officers of Central Excise Department of Kanpur conducted a search of the petitioner's residential premises at Etawah between 26.3.69 and 3.4.69 and seized Primary Gold and also Gold Coins and Ornaments. The seized articles were confiscated by the order dated 5/18th December, 1973 of Collector Central Excise Kanpur under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and a penalty of Rupees One Lac was also imposed under Section 74 of the Act. This order was affirmed in appeal by the Gold Control Administrator and also in revision by the Central Government. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing these orders.
(2.) We have heard Sri V.B. Upadhyaya, for the petitioner and have examined the record. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
(3.) The principal submission of Sri Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that as no notice as required by second Proviso to Section 79 of the Act was given within a period of six months from the date of seizure of the Gold, the seized articles should have been returned to the petitioner and the impugned order of confiscation passed under Section 71 of the Act is wholly illegal. According to learned counsel, the seizure was made bet ween26.3.69 and 3.4.69 therefore, the period of six months, taking into considers in the last date of seizure, namely 3.4.69, expired on 3.10.1969 but the notice of confiscation was served upon the petitioner on 9.10.1969 which was beyond the period of limitation and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to return of the seized articles. It hers been further contended that no legal order for extending the period of limitation as required by second proviso to Section 79 of the Act had been passed by the Collector of Central Excise and therefore, I the notice could not form the basis for confiscation of the articles seized from the petitioner's premises.;