COLLECTOR OF C EX Vs. LAKSHMI JEWELLERY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeals have been preferred-by the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, and are directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dated 16-11-87.

(2.) M/s. Lakshmi Jewellery the First Respondent is a licensee under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, the 'Act' for short, at Nellore and Shri Kamalchand the Second Respondent herein is an employee under Lakshmi Jewellery. On 17-5-85 the Second Respondent Kamalchand was intercepted at Trichur by the Central Excise Officers on prior intelligence and a total quantity of 1671 gms, of new gold ornaments in trade quantities were recovered from his possession. The authorities effected seizure of the same as Kamalchand did not have any valid voucher or permit to possess the said ornaments in trade quantities and since the authorities had reason to believe that they were intended for purposes of sale in contravention of law. Respondent Kamalchand also gave an inculpatory statement before the authorities confessing to the fact that he brought all these ornaments as employee of the First Respondent Lakshmi Jewellery for purposes of sale in Kerala. Proceedings were instituted by issue of Show Cause Notice against the Respondents herein which unlimately culminated in an order of adjudication by the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, dated 3-11-86 in which he imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation of the gold ornaments and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on First Respondent Lakshmi Jewellery and Rs. 25,000/- on Second Respondent Kamalchand. We are not concerned in this appeal about the proceedings against the other persons covered by the said order of the Collector of Central Excise. The Respondents herein preferred an appeal against the said order of the Collector of Central Excise and the same was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 15-7-87 in Order No. 480/87 in which the Tribunal confirmed the findings of the adjudicating authority, but modified the quantum of penalty imposed on the respondents herein. In respect of the seizure of gold ornaments effected from Respondent Kamalchand, Show Cause Notices were is- sued preceding adjudication by two authorities viz. one by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichur, on 14-10-85 and another by the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, dated 8-11-85. Subsequent to the order of the adjudication by the Collector of Central Excise referred to above against the respondents, proceedings were also separately initiated by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichur, which resulted hi the order of adjudication dated 22-5-87 imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on respondent Lakshmi Jewellery and Rs. 5,000/- on respondent Kamalchand. The Respondents herein preferred an appeal against the same before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, who under the impugned order dated 16-11-87 set aside the same on the ground that inasmuch as the respondents herein had been earlier proceeded against in adjudication by the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichur, cannot proceed against them for the same transaction once -A. over. It is this order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) that is challenged before us in appeal

(3.) SHRI Vasudevan, the learned Consultant for the Respondents, submitted that in respect of the violation committed by the Respondents under the provisions of the Act proceedings were initiated by issue of Show Cause Notice by the Collector of Central Excise culminating in an order of adjudication dated 3-11-86 which was also appealed against before the Tribunal resulting in a final order by the Tribunal In such a circumstance initiation of action once moreover in respect of the same transaction against the respondents is not permissible in law and would be a clear case of double jeopardy.