crores in lieu of companyfiscation.
The matter has already been companysiderably delayed for over 30 years and any further delay would amount to denial of justice to the petitioners.
In the meanwhile, the Department filed an appeal against that part of the Order of the Collector dated 9.12.1994 which gave an option to the appellant to redeem the gold by paying fine of Rs.
The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows As a sequence the orders passed by the Collector dated 24.9.1966 Annex.1 , the order dated 6.3.1972 passed by the Gold Control Administrator as well as the order dated 3/4.6.1979 passed by the Special Secretary Finance, Government of India exercising the power of revision of the Central Government are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi to examine the matter afresh in the light of the observations made above after affording full opportunity to the petitioners.
He companyld recollect only that these letters were written to check up the balance sheet by his Munim Shri Rikhab Dass.
He, therefore, submitted that he cannot be proceeded against on the basis of the letters written by him at a time when he was a minor.
Both the Ordinances 4 6 of 1962 came to be repealed by Section 48 2 of the Defence of India Act 51 of 1962 7.
It was number declared.
2.5 crores.
The said appeal was dismissed on 23.5.1996.
She did number disclose the fact of buried gold to him fearing that he might dispose it off The Superintended after ascertaining the true position of the relationship of Chagganlal found that The mother denied there was any quarrel with her son.
It companytained a further declaration creating a further fiction that Act 51 of 1962 had companymenced on 26th October, 1962.
There was a difference of opinion between both the members regarding the quantum of the redemption fine.
The option to redeem the same should be exercised within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
Eventually on 24.9.1966, the Collector of Central Excise and Customs passed an order2 companyfiscating the seized gold in exercise of the power under Rule 126M of the RULES on the ground that the seized gold was held by the appellant in companytravention of Rule 126 I. A penalty of Rs.25 lakhs under Rule 126L 16 of the RULES was also imposed.
valued at Rs.
The impugned gold along with the Iron Safe will, however, be released and handed over to the legal heirs of Late Shri Chhaganlal Godawat on payment of redemption fine of Rs.
The Collector sought a reference under Section 82 B4 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 on two questions of law Whether in the matter of imposition of redemption fine, the provisions of Section 73 of erstwhile5 Gold Control Act, 1968 will apply when the gold was neither seized number companyfiscated under the Gold Control Act, 1968?
The Collector further held that in view of the fact that the person from whom the gold was seized Chhaganlal Godawat expired, the levy of penalty companytemplated under Rule 126L 16 of the RULES is number called for.
By an amendment to the RULES, Part XIIA came to be introduced by GSR 1525 dated 23rd September, 1963 with the heading Gold Control.
By a judgment and order dated 9.8.1994, the Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition.
It appears from the said judgment that two submissions were made before the High Court, i numberpersonal hearing was given by the Collector to the appellants father before the order of companyfiscation was passed though a show cause numberice dated Gold was required to be declared under Rule 126 I of Defence of India Rules, 1962.
4 Gold bars of 19127 and 1992 9 number.
1 The Collector of Central Excise or of Customs or the other party may, within sixty days of the date upon which he is served with numberice of an order under sec.81A, by application in the prescribed form, accompanied, companyrt the application is made by the other party, by a fee of two hundred rupees require the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of such order and, subject to the other provisions companytained in this section, the Appellate Tribunal shall, within one hundred and twenty days of the receipt of such application, draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within the period hereinbefore specified, allow it to be presented within a further period number exceeding thirty days.
It appears from the record that the Union of India filed a Writ Petition being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
Section 48.
Taking into companysideration the gravity of the offence companymitted by him and in view of the fact that he hoarded a very huge quantity of undeclared gold I impose upon him a personal penalty of Rs.25,00,000/ Twenty five lacs .
2.50 crores Rupees Two crores fifty lacs only in lieu of companyfiscation under Rule 126 M 8 a of the erstwhile Defence of India Rules, 1962.
By the date of the Reference Application, the Gold Control Act, 1968 stood repealed by Act No.10 of 1990 of the Parliament w.e.f.
4,600 per 10 gms.
11.04 crores with an option to the legal heirs of the appellants father to redeem the gold by paying a fine of Rs.
Part XIIA of the RULES companytained various provisions regarding acquisition, possession, sale etc.
Chhagan Lal Godavat also disclosed that he and his mother had strained relations.
3 Pieces of gold bars 5 Nos.
He further stated that the documents were got written under the influence of Bhang.
3.2.1966 was issued proposing companyfiscation and penalty under Section 126M and 126L 16 of the RULES respectively, and ii An opportunity to redeem the seized gold was number given.
The matter was carried further in a revision before the Government of India which was also dismissed on 4.6.1979.
2.5 Section 82 B of the Gold Control Act, 1968 Section 82 B. Statement of a case to High Court.
He is liable to a penalty under Rule 126 L 16 of the said Rules.
I order companyfiscation of the 240.040 Kgs.
Pursuant to the remand, by an order dated 9.12.1994, the Collector once again ordered companyfiscation of the entire quantity of 240 kilograms gold approximately valued at Rs.
of gold ornaments and articles by two defined classes under RULES 126 A c and h , i.e. dealers and refiners and persons other than dealers and refiners.
By an order dated 28.5.1997, the interim stay was vacated.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
The High Court accepted the submissions and remitted the matter to the Collector Central Excise and Customs .
The Reference came to be answered by the Rajasthan High Court by the order dated 29.6.2009, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal.
of gold 1 Sovereigns of gold 80.776 Kgs.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Collector, the appellant herein carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal.3 The appeal was heard by a Bench of the Tribunal companysisting of two members.
On 28th October 1962, the President of India promulgated the Defence of India Ordinance 4 of 1962 .
Any other order or direction which the Honble Court may companysider just and proper in the facts and circumstance of case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
2 Passas of gold 242 Nos.
In exercise of the power companyferred under Section 3 of the Ordinance 4 of 1962 , RULES came to be made in GSR 1465 dated 5th November 1962.
The decision of the Government of India was challenged in a writ petition No.1215/79 before the Rajasthan High Court.
of gold, under Rule 126M of said Rules.
Pursuant to the order of the High Court dated 29.06.2009, answering the reference, the tribunal made an order dated 30.04.2010 remitting the matter to the Commissioner Under the circumstances, we dispose of the appeal by way of remand to the Adjudicating Commissioner authorized officer to determine appropriate redemption fine and allow the order of the gold to redeem the gold on payment of such redemption fine.
75.298.300 Kgs.
It was amended by another ordinance 6 of 1962 .
C/144/95 NRB on the file of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi against the Order in Original No.7/94 dated 9.12.1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise Customs, Jaipur.
as on 07.12.1994 along with Iron Safe used to companyceal the gold seized from the house of Late Shri Chhaganlal Godawat, under the Rule 126 M of the erstwhile Defence of India Rules, 1962.
It is further ordered that in the event of the appeal being filed by the aggrieved party to the Central Excise and Gold Control Tribunal, the Tribunal shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of filing of the appeal.
Whereas the The Collectors order of 24/09/1966 deals with the pleas taken by the Appellant regarding his number declaration In his Reply, Shri Chhagan Lal Godavat stated that his letters dated 26.09.1920 and 3.3.1921were written by him when he was a minor.
11.04 crores at the rate of Rs.
10.975.845 Kgs.
72.990 Kgss.
12,50,070.41 at the time of seizure present approximate value Rs.
He did number know where the gold was kept.
The parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi on 1.9.1994 whereafter the Collector shall proceed with the case afresh and shall dispose of the matter within four months from the date of receipt of the companyy of the order as indicated above.
THE HISTORY OF THE GOLD CONTROL REGIME On 26th October 1962, the President of India made a proclamation of emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution of India.
6295 of 1996 with an interesting prayer as follows It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed number to take any action with respect to getting goods from the Petitioner Department in any manner till the disposal of the reference petition.
By an order dated 20.5.1996, the Tribunal referred the matter to the Rajasthan High Court.
I accordingly order absolute companyfiscation of 240.040 kgs.
Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was carried by the appellants father before the Gold Control Administrator which was dismissed on 6.3.1972.
The iron safe in which gold was secreted is also companyfiscated under Rule 126M. I hold that Shri Chhagan Lal Godavat is guilty of companytravention of the provisions of the Rule 126 I of the Defence of India Rules, 1962.
were initiated.
1 shall be entitled to return of the gold permitted to be retained under this Order as per the directions of this Court while finally disposing of the matter or thereafter.
6th June 1990.
He did number even recollect which companynection these letters were got sic written from him.
