KAMALA BALA DUTTA Vs. COLLECTOR C EX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta dated 16-1-1979 absolutely confiscating 28.200 grms. of primary gold valued at Rs. 1071.00; imposing a fine of Rs. 32,000/-in lieu of confiscation of 818.400 grms. of gold ornaments and gold articles valued at Rs. 30,694/-; and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs jointly on appellant S/Shri K.K. Datta and A.N. Datta under the provisions of Gold Control Act, 1968 (the Act for short).

(2.) The appellant K.K. Datta, subsequent to the filing of appeal died and legal representatives have been brought on record.

(3.) SHRI Pal, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were not conversant with English language and the statements recorded are not admissible in law since the authorities had not recorded it in the language of the appellants. It was further urged that though the statement of A.N. Datta was not retracted the same would not have any value in law having regard to the reply given by the appellants in the show cause notice repudiating the charges of the department. It was further submitted that D.N. Datta, the son of K.K. Datta was having a goldsmith's licence and, therefore, the ornaments had been manufactured on the basis of the orders of the various customers and this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the adjudicating authority. The learned counsel further submitted that the adjudicating authority did not examine the customers and verify the truth of the plea of the appellants. The learned counsel also assailed the correctness of the findings of the adjudicating authority in the impugned order that the appellants confessed to the charge of contravention during the personal hearing. The learned counsel further submitted that though the appellants had stated that the purity of the ornaments was 22 carat the authority should have independently assayed the same and this not having been done the appellants are entitled to be exonerated of the charges. The learned counsel also assailed the findings of the adjudicating authority that the gold ornaments which were not available for seizure were also ornaments purchased for purpose of sale, merely because in the Register the value of the gold alone had been indicated.