T K SETHURAMAN Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS PREV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforesaid 12 appeals arise out of the common order passed by the Collector of Customs (Prev.) Bombay bearing F.No. XVII (GC) 8-12/88 dated 1-2-1989, ordering confiscation of primary gold weighing 2325.400 gms valued at Rs. 7,32,500/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and Section 71(1) of the Gold (Control) Act.

(2.) Since all these appeals are against the order of absolute confiscation of the gold and they are from the persons connected with the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, whose gold was ordered absolute confiscation, common arguments were advanced and they were heard together and hence this common order.

(3.) SHRI George Cheriyan, on behalf of the appellants, at the outset contended that even according to the findings of the Collector, the gold is undoubtedly belonging to Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams as part of the offerings made by the devotees of Lord Venkateshwara. Hence, the ownership of the gold vests with T.T.D. However, the impugned order of absolute confiscation of gold has been passed without issue of show cause notice to the T.T.D. duly represented by the Board of Trustees. The show cause notices have been issued to the individuals viz. Chairman, Financial Advisor, Executive officer, 2 Asstt. Executive officers and U.D. Clerk by name. Since the interests of the T.T.D. are mainly affected, the T.T.D. also have filed an appeal on their own apart from the appeals from the individuals. SHRI Cheriyan thereafter took us through the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. He pointed out that T.T.D. have been separately defined under Section 2(28) of the aforesaid Act. He also pointed out that under Section 111 of the aforesaid Act, T.T.D. shall have its own funds, the corpus of which shall include all the amounts received by it by way of donations, gifts, kanukas including offerings deposited in Hundis and any income from any other source. He also pointed out that the said funds shall be operated by an officer or officers authorised by the Board of Trustees in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. He pointed out that Chapter XIV of the aforesaid Act is wholly devoted to the T.T.D. According to Section 97 of the said Act, the administration of the T.T.D. shall vest in the Board of Trustees, and this Board shall manage the properties, funds and affairs of the T.T.D. He, therefore, contended that no notice has been issued to the T.T.D. represented by the Board of Trustees, who manage the properties and affairs of the T.T.D. This has also been pointed out in reply to the show cause notice of the individual appellants. Notwithstanding this position, the Col lector has ordered absolute confiscation without giving an opportunity to the proper owner of the property. He also referred to the findings of the Collector, wherein the Collector himself has admitted that the gold is undoubtedly a part of the offerings made by the devotees of the Lord. Hence, the adjudication order passed without a notice to the owner, is contrary to the provisions of Section 124 of the Customs Act and Section 79 of the Gold Control Act, and is therefore required to be set aside. Since no notice can be issued at this stage and the period of six months having been already over, the gold ordered confiscation is required to be restored to the T.T.D.