Chandra Pal Singh Vs. the Additional Collector, Central Excise

Chandra Pal Singh vs The Additional Collector, Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 03, 1987

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/475500

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/475500
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: R.M. Sahai and; Om Prakash, JJ.
Decided On: Nov 03, 1987
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 632 of 1984
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Gold Control - Confiscation--Redemption--Adjudicating authority finding breach of Sections 8(10), 11 and 17, confiscating gold, imposing penalty and giving option to redeem on payment of fine--Petitioner complying with conditions--Department not releasing gold on ground that criminal prosecution was to be launched--...

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chandra Pal Singh

Respondent

The Additional Collector, Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: 1988(17)ECC303

Excerpt

gold control - confiscation--redemption--adjudicating authority finding breach of sections 8(10), 11 and 17, confiscating gold, imposing penalty and giving option to redeem on payment of fine--petitioner complying with conditions--department not releasing gold on ground that criminal prosecution was to be launched--illegal--order to launch prosecution cannot be equated with initiation of prosecution--gold (control) act (45 of 1968), sections 8(1), 11, 17, 27, 85. - r.m. sahai, j.1. the only question for consideration in this petition is if the opposite parties could have refused to release the primary gold seized under gold (control) act even though petitioner had complied with the conditions imposed in adjudication proceedings.2. in adjudication proceedings, it was held that the charge of contravention of provisions of section 27 of the act could not be established. but the petitioner was found to have acted in breach of sections 8(1), 11 and 17. the additional collector, therefore, while imposing penalty rs. 31,000 directed the gold the to be confiscated but gave an option to petitioner to redeem it on payment of rs. 80,000 within three months. it is not disputed that the petitioner deposited both penalty and the amount determined for redumption within three months. but it was not released as collector, central excise after the adjudication order passed an order that since petitioner was to be prosecuted under section 85 of the act where the gold shall have to be exhibited it was not possible to release it.3. order to launch criminal prosecution passed by collector cannot be equated with initiation of prosecution. no effort has been made by opposite party to produce any order or even material to establish, if criminal proceedings were initiated in pursuance of the order passed by the collector. in these circumstances, there is no option but to direct the opposite party to act in accordance with order passed in adjudication proceedings.4. in the circumstances, a direction is issued to the collector, central excise, kanpur to release the primary gold of the petitioner weighing 1010.900 grams forthwith. there shall be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

R.M. Sahai, J.

1. The only question for consideration in this petition is if the opposite parties could have refused to release the primary gold seized under Gold (Control) Act even though petitioner had complied with the conditions imposed in adjudication proceedings.

2. In adjudication proceedings, it was held that the charge of contravention of provisions of Section 27 of the Act could not be established. But the petitioner was found to have acted in breach of Sections 8(1), 11 and 17. The Additional Collector, therefore, while imposing penalty Rs. 31,000 directed the gold the to be confiscated but gave an option to petitioner to redeem it on payment of Rs. 80,000 within three months. It is not disputed that the petitioner deposited both penalty and the amount determined for redumption within three months. But it was not released as Collector, Central Excise after the adjudication order passed an order that since petitioner was to be prosecuted under Section 85 of the Act where the gold shall have to be exhibited it was not possible to release it.

3. Order to launch criminal prosecution passed by Collector cannot be equated with initiation of prosecution. No effort has been made by opposite party to produce any order or even material to establish, if criminal proceedings were initiated in pursuance of the order passed by the Collector. In these circumstances, there is no option but to direct the opposite party to act in accordance with order passed in adjudication proceedings.

4. In the circumstances, a direction is issued to the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur to release the primary gold of the petitioner weighing 1010.900 grams forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1987 Same Parties Chandra Pal Singh vs The Additional Collector, Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge R.M. Sahai and; Om Prakash, JJ.

Excise