Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Jamna Dass Ram Parkash vs Collector Of Central Excise And Customs on 28 February, 1986
Equivalent citations: 1986(7)ECR235(TRI.-DELHI), 1986(24)ELT618(TRI-DEL)
ORDER G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)
1. This appeal is directed against Order No. 28/CH/Gold/83 dated 21-10-1983, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, upholding Order No. 4/Gold/80 dated 24-9-1980 passed by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Chandigarh. The respondent has also filed his cross-objection. This order will dispose of the appeal as well as the cross-objection.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on information, the Hqrs. Preventive staff of Central Excise Collectorate, Chandigarh, visited the business premises of the appellant firm, a Licensed Gold Dealer, on 3-11-1979 and found one tin-box containing 73 pieces of gold ornaments weighing 437.300 gms unaccounted for. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued, in reply to which, the appellant inter alia stated that 2 (two) Karas, mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1 & 7 of the Panchnama, belonged to the domestic jewellery and test of the ornaments belonged to four different customers, who had given them for minor repair and washing on the same day in the morning and that the said ornaments could not be entered into the repair register as their Munim had not attended the shop and he himself being an illiterate person could not do the job. After the usual enquiry, the learned Adjudicating Authority rejected the defence of the appellant holding that it was an after-thought and ordered that the seized gold ornaments, that is to say, 73 pieces weighing 437.300 gms. be confiscated Under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20.000/-. The Adjudicating Authority also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the appellant. Against this order of the Adjudicating Authority, the appeal was filed but without any success.
3. The respondent, in his cross-objection, has not taken any new ground but simply has stated that the order, passed by the Adjudicating Authority and confirmed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), is according to the law and does not require any interference by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
4. Shri M. Ganesan, learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments submits before me that he has nothing to say about the merits of the case but submits that the amount of redemption fine as well as the penalty is on excessive side as the said offence is merely of technical nature. In support of his contention, he cited Order No. 329/83-NRB dated 4-8-1983, passed by this Tribunal in the case of S/Shri Kewal Krishan Butta and Bishan Dass Butta, New Delhi v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, New Delhi. In reply, the learned SDR submits that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, redemption fine as well as the penalty is not on excessive side.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rakesh Bhatia, SDR for the respondent, I am of the view that the redemption fine and the penalty are on excessive side. The record of the case shows that the appellant, admittedly a Licensed Gold Dealer, did not keep his register up-to-date and, for that, he has his own reasons. There is no allegation that the appellant had disposed of the ornaments/seized gold pieces in a clandestine manner and he has been found guilty only on the ground that the seized gold was not accounted for in his register. In this view of the matter, a penalty of proper nature would serve the purpose obviously to keep him careful and vigilant in future. Accordingly, while maintaining the redemption fine of Rs. 20.000/- in lieu of the confiscation of the seized gold ornaments, I reduce the personal penalty amount from Rs. 10.000/- to Rs. 2,000/- only. It would not be out of place to mention here that in the case of S/Shri Kewal Krishan Butta and Bishan Dass Butta v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, New Delhi, supra, the learned Members of the Bench reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 10.000/- to Rs. 5,000/- under similar circumstances.
6. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The findings and the redemption fine are hereby confirmed but the amount of penalty is reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- only, and the cross-objection also stands disposed of accordingly.