Judgment:
1. C/Stay Petition Nos. 414 to 420/87. - The above applications have been filed seeking interim suspension of the operation of the impugned order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras, dated 20-3-1987 appealed against. Since we propose to dispose of the appeals themselves to day, the above petitions are dismissed.
2. C/Appeal NOS. 330 to 336/87-MAS. - The above appeals arise out of a common order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras, dated 20-3-1987 under which the lower appellate authority has set 'aside the order of the original authority, namely the Deputy Collector of Customs, Bangalore, dated 28-4-1986 and remanded "for de novo consideration and for passing two separate appealable orders under the Customs as well as Gold (Control) Acts".
3. The Deputy Collector of Customs, Bangalore passed an order of adjudication by his order dated 28-4-1986 referred to supra, against the respondents under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 as Well as the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 against which; the respondents herein preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority, who under the impugned order set aside the order of the original authority and issued a direction for passing two separate appealable orders under the Customs as well as Gold (Control) Acts. The Collector of Customs, Bangalore has filed the above appeals against the impugned order questioning the correctness of the same.
4. Shri Bhatia, the learned Senior Departmental Representative at the outset submitted that in respect of orders passed under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act,: other than by the Collector, an appeal as per law would lie to the Collector of Central .Excise (Appeals) and likewise in respect of orders passed other than by Collector of Customs under the Customs Act, 1962 an appeal would lie to the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The learned SDR contended, that inasmuch as the original order has been passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs an appeal would lie only to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), notwithstanding the fact that it also deals with contraventions under .the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
5. The respondents in appeal Nos. 330 to 335/87 are riot represented by anyone nor they are present. Respondents Rajendra Rashiklal Vora and Vijay Kumar Shah (in Appeal Nos. 331 and 334/87 respectively) have sent a communication that the appeals in which they are1 respondents could be disposed of on the materials available on record.Since the entire issue lies in a very short compass and is purely a question of law, we propose to dispose of the appeals to-day. Shri Bhaskaran, the learned counsel for respondents in Customs Appeal No. 336/87 agreed with the submissions of the learned S.D.R. and contended that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) would be a competent authority to decide a question arising out of the original order in adjudication under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and as such the lower appellate authority should have traversed the issue on merits instead of remitting the matter for de novo consideration with a direction to pass separate orders under different Acts.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. The short question that arises for our consideration in the present case is whether the Collector of Customs (Appeals) is competent under law to hear and dispose of an appeal arising under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Section 2(ee) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 defines "Collector (Appeals)" as under :- "Collector (Appeals)" means a Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) or a Collector of Customs (Appeals) appointed under Section 4 to be a Collector (Appeals) for the purposes of this Acts;" Section 4 of the Act deals with appointment and functions of Administrator and Gold Control Officers. Section 4i(1) of the Act says that "the Central Government shall, by notification, appoint an Administrator for carrying out the purposes of this Act". Section 4(2) reads that, "the Central Government may, by notification, appoint as many persons as it thinks fit to be gold control officers tor the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act"; and the Collector of Customs (Appeals) is also an authority notified in terms of Section 4 of the Act as Collector (Appeals) within the meaning of Section 80 of the Act.
7. The impugned order has been passed presumably on the basis that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) would not have jurisdiction in deciding the question arising out of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. During the hearing before us it was informed by the respondents that following the issue of Notification No. 199/81, dated 3-9-1981 appointing the Appellate Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Madras as competent to decide appeals under Gold (Control) Act, instructions had been issued by the Ministry of Finance in their Gold Control Circular No. 11/81, dated 14-12-1981 that it does not preclude the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras, from deciding Gold Control appeals pertaining to the jurisdictional Southern Zone, and that the Notification had been issued only keeping in view the respective workloads. From this it would appear that with the change only in nomenclature of the appellate authority as Collector (Appeals) brought about by the amendments to the Act in 1982 no further change in the already existing position regarding competence and jurisdiction became necessary and hence in this view of the matter also there would be no want of jurisdiction for the Collector of Customs (Appeals) to decide appeals under the Gold (Control) Act. Even assuming for the purpose of argument that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) is not an authority competent to hear an appeal arising under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, the only course open to the lower appellate authority even in such a circumstance is to direct the party to prefer a separate appeal before the competent appellate authority and not setting aside the impugned order and giving a direction for de novo adjudication for issuing separate appellable orders. All that a person may have to do in such a situation would be to obtain one more certified copy and pursue the appellate remedy before the appropriate appellate authority and such a course would not warrant the setting aside of the order passed by the original authority. In this view of the matter we set aside the impugned order appealed against and remit the appeals to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) who, in our opinion, is the authority competent to decide the matters arising under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 as well for disposal according to law. In doing so we bear in mind the fact that if two different appellate authorities were to decide an identical issue arising under the provisions of the two different enactments namely, viz. one under the Customs Act, 1962 and the other under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, it is likely to lead to conflicting decision and, therefore, in the interests of justice it is but proper that the transaction which would make for an offence under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is decided by the same authority, to avert a possible judicial conflict.