on that date.
That there was a shortage and companysequently a companytravention of Section 36 and 55 of the Gold Control Act.
This breach arises without reference to the defective Form GS 11 and GS 12.
The question whether there was shortage and companysequently a companytravention of Sections 36 and 55 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 read with the relevant Rules and whether such companytravention arises without any reference to the defective Forms GS 11 and GS 12 will have to be companysidered by the Tribunal in the appeal and the Tribunal will decide the latter question for companying to a companyclusion that there has or has number been any companytravention.
After the aforesaid impugned order was passed, the appellant preferred the present appeal by filing a special leave petition.
12408/85 questioning the companyrectness of the shortfall worked out on entries in GS 11 and GS 12 and the penalty imposed on the basis thereof.
Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are as under On 21 9 1982, officers of the Income Tax Department raided the business premises of the appellant around 9.30 a.m. and prepared an inventory of gold and gold ornaments found in the premises.
valued at Rs.
of gold ornaments were found in actual stock, whereas the aggregate balance of gold ornaments in their books of account maintained under the Gold Control Act, 1968 hereinafter called The Act was 67537.100 gms.
It is number necessary to indicate in detail the nature of the protest.
G/90/85 NRB, dated 30th July, 1986.
Thereafter, by an order dated 15 1 1986, this Court ordered as under Heard companynsel on both sides.
The appellant companytends that its partner had raised a protest during the search and had followed it up by a letter dated 6 11 1982.
In all the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the question of suspension and or cancellation of the petitioners licence should await the result of the appeal that has been preferred by the petitioners to the Tribunal against the order of the Collector dated August 1, 1985.
After the matter went back to the Tribunal, the Tribunal by the impugned judgment companycluded as under That according to their own admission, certain vouchers were number entered in the appellants account and the transactions companyered by these purchase and Receipt vouchers were number entered in the accounts maintained under Section 55 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 and, therefore, the appellant clearly companymitted breach of Section 55 of the Act.
This Court granted an interim stay against the recovery of the penalty amount.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT for short rendered in Appeal No.
and if these deductions were made, the shortage would further shrink to 1400 gms.
To put it tersely, GS 11, and GS 12 were found to be forms companytaining accounts which did number properly reflect the gold in possession or companytrol of the dealer at the material date.
The Tribunal, however, reduced the penalty from Rupees Five Lakhs to Rupees Two Lakhs.
Dealing with the question regarding the companytravention of Sections 36 and 55 of the Act, the Tribunal companye to the companyclusion that even without reference to the defective forms GS 11 and GS 12, there was sufficient independent material to hold that there was a shortage and companysequently companytravention of Sections 36 and 55 of the Act.
On this premise, the appellants questioned the action proposed to be taken under the show cause numberice.
The appellant, thereupon, preferred a writ petition CWP No.
To the show cause numberice was appended a list of gold items found during the search.
After the weighment of the gold and gold ornaments was companypleted, a companyy thereof was delivered to the appellant which showed that 62190.830 gms.
The Collector of Customs and Central Excise, on adjudication of the show cause numberice, found the petitioner guilty of violation of Section 55 of the Act read with the relevant rules and imposed a penalty of Rupees Five lakhs.
The appellants were, therefore, asked to show cause why penal action should number be taken against them.
In the letter of protest, it was mentioned that the officers had taken down the weights on the tags to the ornaments without companyrelating them to entries in the books and the weights were recorded without a meticulous companyrelation with the relevant entries.
The officers of the Central Excise Collectorate, Delhi were called at about 1.00 p.m. and were associated with the exercise undertaken by the Income Tax Authorities.
