Judgment K.B.N.SINGH, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing orders of confiscation of gold and gold ornaments and imposition of penalty of the Collector of Central Excise, Patna dated the 19th June, 1965 (Annexure 1), as also the orders of the Gold Control Administrator, dated the 26th September, 1969 (Annexure 3), and the orders of the Government of India dated the 25th January, 1971 (Annexure 4), refusing to interfere with the orders of the Collector. 2. The petitioner has stated in the writ application that he is a poor Karigar (certified goldsmith) and has been doing the work of repairing and making gold ornaments from old ornaments supplied by the customers. At the place where the petitioner worked, other Karigars (certified goldsmiths), namely, Ramchandra Prasad, Baleshwar Prasad and Sarjoo Lal, were also doing similar work of their own customers, as the petitioner. None of these workers were subordinate to one another and they earned their charges from their respective customers for the work done by each of them. On the 11th April, 1964, some officers of the Central Excise visited the premises where the petitioner and the other three Karigars used to work and seized 474.207 grammes of melted gold and ornaments. They also seized a piece of primary gold bearing foreign marks, weighing 116.650 grammes from the possession of Ramchandra Prasad. The Officers also forced the petitioner to sign some statements, which were written according to their dictation. Thereafter, show cause notices were served on the petitioner as well as the other three Karigars, alleging contravention of Rules 126-C, 126-G (3) and 126-HH of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Notices were also served on the petitioner and the other three Karigars for the alleged contravention of Sec.11 of the Customs Act and Rules 126-F, 126-H and 126-I of the Rules. The first set of notices related to the seizure of 474.207 grammes of gold and ornaments and a proceeding was initiated before the Collector of Central Excise, Patna, in this regard. The second set of notices related to the seizure of primary gold piece, bearing foreign marks, and a proceeding in this regard was started before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patna. The second set of notices related to the seizure of primary gold piece, bearing foreign marks, and a proceeding in this regard was started before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patna. It is the petitioners case that he and the other two Karigars filed their show cause before the Collector of Central Excise, stating that the petitioner held goldsmiths certificate dated the 21st January, 1964, to make ornaments from old ornaments supplied by the customers. The other three Karigars also had similar certificates and the seized gold and the gold ornaments, weighing 474.207 grammes were the ornaments made or in the process of being made from the old ornaments supplied by the various customers, whose names and addresses were given for verification. The petitioner also prayed that the said customers be summoned for examination before the Collector. The petitioners case further is that two of the Karigars, namely, Sarjoo Lal and Baleshwar Prasad, corroborated the case of the petitioner before the Collector. Ramchandra Prasad, however, neither filed show cause nor appeared before the Collector. A grievance is made that without summoning the customers or Ramchandra Prasad, the Collector, by an order dated the 19th June, 1965, directed for confiscation of the gold and gold ornaments seized, under Rule 126-M and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000.00 under Rule 126-L (16) of the Rules (Annexure 1). No order adverse to the remaining three Karigars was passed in the proceeding before the Collector. 3. As regards the proceeding before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patna, regarding the seizure of primary gold bearing foreign marks, in his show cause the petitioner has stated that the said primary gold was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner, but it was recovered from the possession of Ramchandra Prasad, who was accountable for that. In that proceeding, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise ordered confiscation of the primary gold under Rule 126-M of the Rules. 4. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise before the Gold Control Administrator, New Dehli, and also filed affidavits of ten customers (filed as Annexures 2 (a) to 2 (j) to the writ application), in support of his assertion about the gold ornaments being handed over to the petitioner by those witnesses for making new ornaments as per their orders. The petitioner also filed an affidavit sworn by him. The petitioner also filed an affidavit sworn by him. The petitioners appeal, however, was dismissed by the Gold Control Administrator (Annexure 3). A revision application filed by him before the Government of India was also rejected (Annexure 4). Thereafter this writ application was filed for quashing these orders. 5. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit has been filed, in which it was asserted that the petitioner was maintaining a regular workshop where petty Karigars were manufacturing gold ornaments out of illegally acquired gold and two of the Karigars, Sarjoo Lal and Bales hwar Prasad, admitted this fact. In the counter-affidavit it was also asserted that the foreign gold was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and not Ramchandra Prasad. As a matter of fact, the petitioner, in his statement before the seizing authority admitted that all the gold seized was recovered from his premises and possession. In his show cause before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise also the petitioner admitted recovery of foreign gold from his possession and the statement of the petitioner made at the time of the seizure was voluntary one, made without any threat or coercion. It was also asserted in the counter-affidavit that no account was produced by the petitioner at the time of the seizure to show the lawful possession of the gold and gold ornaments and the production of the list of the so-called customers at the late stage, without any entry in the prescribed account book in this regard was not relevant. 6. Mr. Keshari Kishore Sharan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the orders of the Central Excise Authorities are vitiated as there has been violation of the principles of natural justice in denying adequate opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself by the Collector of Central Excise. The following factors have been emphasised in support of this contention: (a) Failure to secure presence of Ramchandra Prasad from whose possession foreign gold was recovered. (b) The customers whose names and addresses were filed before the Collector, along with the show cause, were not summoned and examined by the Collector. (c) The statement of the petitioner recorded at the time of the seizure has been used against him, without supplying a copy of the same to the petitioner. There does not appear to be any substance in these contentions of the learned Counsel. (c) The statement of the petitioner recorded at the time of the seizure has been used against him, without supplying a copy of the same to the petitioner. There does not appear to be any substance in these contentions of the learned Counsel. From the order of the Collector of Central Excise, it appears that the petitioner after he filed show cause, was given a personal hearing. The other two Karigars, Sarjoo Lal and Baleshwar Prasad, while supporting partially the contention of the petitioner, as mentioned in the counter-affidavit, asserted that they were working for the petitioner for wages and they were neither keeping gold nor gold ornaments with them. From the copy of the show cause filed by the petitioner, produced before us on behalf of the petitioner, it does not appear that any prayer was made to examine the ten customers nor anything has been produced before us to show that any prayer was made at any stage before the Collector to summon any of the customers, which was refused by the Collector. 7. The petitioners contention that the ornaments in question belonged to the customers, was rejected by the Collector, in view of the statement of the petitioner made at the time of the seizure that the gold and ornaments in question were purchased from the Patna Market. The statement used is a statement recorded in his own handwriting and under his own signature, which he has not alleged in the show cause to have been obtained under any coercion. If the petitioner wanted a copy of that statement, he should have demanded the same from the authorities. Nothing has been produced before us to show that he ever wanted a copy of the said statement, which was refused by the authorities. There was no obligation on the part of the Collector to summon the customers even without a prayer to that effect on the part of the petitioner. Sub-rule (13) of Rule 126-L of the Rules empowers the authorities to summon witnesses at the inquiry, but it does not make it obligatory to summon all conceivable persons in support of the defence, even without a prayer to that effect. Sub-rule (13) of Rule 126-L of the Rules empowers the authorities to summon witnesses at the inquiry, but it does not make it obligatory to summon all conceivable persons in support of the defence, even without a prayer to that effect. It appears from paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit that efforts had been made to secure the attendance of Ramchandra Prasad by issuing notice by registered post, but it failed, and even the petitioner could not give the home address of Ramchandra Prasad and only stated that he lived in the house of Sheolalji of Mohalla Machharhatta, who also, on being contacted, could not give the home address of Ramchandra Prasad. It is, therefore, manifest that efforts were made by the Department to procure the attendance of Ramchandra Prasad and, apparently, as he had no interest in the matter he did not appear. The primary gold, with foreign marking, has been ordered to be confiscated by the Assistant Collector and there has been no appeal or revision against that order, as admitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner, and that order has become final. The absence of Ramchandra Prasad, in my considered opinion, has not in any way prejudiced the petitioner. The affidavits of the ten customers were filed before the Gold Control Administrator before whom the petitioner was personally present and represented by a Counsel at the time of hearing, and, after hearing the lawyer and examining the records, the Administrator rejected the appeal of the petitioner. His defence has been fully considered by the Government of India also and rejected. No argument seems to have been advanced before the appellate or the revisional authority about the petitioner having been denied any adequate opportunity to defend himself. It is, therefore, manifest that there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice, as urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It may be pointed out that every dealer is required to maintain accounts, as provided under Rule 126-G in the prescribed form of gold bought or sold. This rule is applicable able to a certified goldsmith also, which the petitioner claims to be, by virtue of sub-rule (7) of Rule 126-HH. A reference to the prescribed Forms Nos. 7 and 8 shows that the detailed accounts of gold received have to be maintained in regular course of business. This rule is applicable able to a certified goldsmith also, which the petitioner claims to be, by virtue of sub-rule (7) of Rule 126-HH. A reference to the prescribed Forms Nos. 7 and 8 shows that the detailed accounts of gold received have to be maintained in regular course of business. None was produced before the authorities in support of the assertion that the gold or ornaments in question belonged to the customers. Those accounts were not even produced before us. The expression gold according to the definition contained in Rule 126-A (d) of the Rules, includes ornaments also. A party having failed to comply with the requirements of the rules, in not maintaining accounts of the gold received, can hardly be allowed to complain that the principles of natural justice have been violated by failure of the authority to summon customers to prove that the gold in question belonged to the customers. 8. Mr. Sharan has further submitted that the Collector of Central Excise, the Gold Control Administrator, as well as the Central Government, have acted prejudicially to the petitioner on a mistaken notion that the petitioner was dealing foreign gold. Due to this mistaken notion of theirs, they were importing matters beyond the scope of the proceeding before them. Learned Counsel submitted that the foreign gold in question was really recovered from the possession of Ramchandra Prasad and not the petitioner. There is no substance in this submission of the learned Counsel as well. A copy of the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise dated the 1st October, 1964, passed in the proceeding started against the petitioner regarding the seizure of foreign gold bar has been filed before us on behalf of the Departure and there is no dispute before us with regard to that order. From the said order it appears that in reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner contended that the foreign gold bar in question was given to the petitioner through Ramchandra Prasad, Karigar, in the evening of the 10th April, 1964, for manufacture of ornaments by some customer, whose name and address is not known to him. From the said order it appears that in reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner contended that the foreign gold bar in question was given to the petitioner through Ramchandra Prasad, Karigar, in the evening of the 10th April, 1964, for manufacture of ornaments by some customer, whose name and address is not known to him. At the time of actual hearing, the petitioner was personally heard by the Assistant Collector and the stand taken at the time of hearing was that the foreign gold bar in question was handed over to the petitioner by some unknown person in the evening of the 10th April, 1964, whose name and address was not known to him, and the petitioner expressed his inability to trace out that person. The Assistant Collector rejected the defence story as concocted and also relied upon his earlier statement recorded on the 11th April, 1964, and held the petitioner guilty of contravention of the provisions of Rule 126-H of the Rules, and ordered confiscation of the foreign gold bar. There has been no appeal against this order of the Assistant Collector and the order has become final, as already mentioned. In such circumstances, there is no question of the Collector of Excise or Administrator or the Central Government acting under any mistaken notion about the petitioner dealing in foreign gold, as urged. 9. Mr. Sharan has lastly contended that there can be no question of any contravention of Rule 126-C, as it applies to a dealer, whereas the petitioner is not a dealer; but a certified goldsmith, and is entitled to receive from customers gold ornaments for manufacturing ornaments of above 14 carats purity. Mr. Sharan relied upon the definition of the term dealer as contained in Rule 126-A (c) of the Rules, the relevant portion of which may be quoted:- "(c) dealer means any person who carries on, directly or otherwise, the business of- (i) making, manufacturing, buying, selling, supplying, distributing, melting, processing or converting ornaments, (ii) buying, selling, supplying, distributing, melting, processing or converting gold for the purpose of making or manufacturing ornaments, whether for cash or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration, and includes- xxxxxxxx" He next referred to the provisions of Rule 126-C of the Rules, which imposes a restriction on a dealer from making, etc., of ornaments of gold having purity exceeding 14 carats. The relevant portion of this rule may usefully be quoted:- "126-C - Restriction on the making, etc. of ornaments- (1) Save as provided in Chapter IV-A of this Part, as from the commencement of this part- (a) no dealer, whether licensed under this Part or not, shall- (i) make, manufacture or prepare, or, (ii) sell or otherwise transfer, agree to sell or otherwise transfer, or expose or offer for sale or transfer, and, (b) no person shall place any order with any dealer, whether licensed under this Part or not, for the making, manufacture or preparation of, any ornament having gold of a purity exceeding fourteen carats: xxxxxxxx" Rule 126-E of Chapter III of the Rules deals with licensing of dealers and refiners. In the instant case we are not concerned with the case of a dealer or a refiner. It is not disputed before us that the petitioner is a certified goldsmith. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has produced a valid licence for the relevant period, renewed up to the year 1966. A certified goldsmith has been defined in Rule 126-A (bb), which runs as follows:- "(bb) Certified Goldsmith means a dealer who holds a valid certificate granted under Rule 126-HH, recognising him as a goldsmith;" Chapter IV-A of the Rules consists of the solitary rule, Rule 126-HH. which deals with certified goldsmiths, relevant portion of which runs thus:- "(1) A dealer, who is not required by sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (4) of Rule 126-E to make any application for the issue of a licence under that rule and has not obtained any licence in pursuance of an application made by him under sub-rule (6) of that rule may, if he was carrying on business as a dealer for more than a year immediately before the commencement of this Part- (a) accept from any person, not being a dealer or refiner, any ornament or ornaments having gold or purity exceeding fourteen carats for the purpose of making, manufacturing or preparing; and, (b) make, manufacture, or prepare, new ornament or ornaments from that ornament or those ornaments so however that the purity and the total quantity of gold contained in such new ornament or ornaments do not exceed the purity and the total quantity of gold contained in the ornament accepted. (2) No such dealer shall accept any such ornament or ornaments for the purpose of making, manufacturing or preparing new ornament or ornaments as aforesaid after the 31st March, 1964, unless he has before that date made application to the Administrator in the prescribed form on payment of a fee of one rupee for the issue of a certificate recognising him as a goldsmith, provided that he shall not carry on business as such dealer after he is informed by the Administrator by notice in writing that his application for the issue of a certificate has been rejected. xxxxxxxx" Sub-rule (7) of this Rule requires a certified goldsmith to maintain accounts, as required under Rule 126-G as if he was a licenced dealer. Then comes sub-rule (8), on which reliance is played by Mr. Sharan, and which reads as follows:- (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 126-C a certified goldsmith may make or manufacture primary gold of a purity exceeding fourteen carats by melting or processing or converting any ornament: Provided that a certified goldsmith shall not have at any time in his possession, custody or control any quantity of such primary gold in excess of one hundred grammes." Mr. Sharan has relied on the first part of sub-rule (8), and contended that Rule 126-C has no application to a certified goldsmith and there is no restriction on a certified goldsmith in making ornaments having gold purity exceeding 14 carats. But this sub-rule, making a concession in favour of a certified goldsmith for making and manufacturing primary gold is not unqualified. It is restricted by a proviso to sub-rule (8), which forbids a certified goldsmith from possessing at any time primary gold of purity above fourteen carats in excess of one hundred grammes. 336.428 grammes of primary gold and 137.779 grammes of ornaments of purity above fourteen carats were recovered from the premises and possession of the petitioner. This is obviously in excess of the quantity permissible under the proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 126- HH. Faced with this difficulty, Mr. Sharan argued that the proviso to sub-rule (8) was limited to the primary gold belonging to the certified goldsmith, that is to say, his own gold. The wording of the proviso does not admit of any such construction. Faced with this difficulty, Mr. Sharan argued that the proviso to sub-rule (8) was limited to the primary gold belonging to the certified goldsmith, that is to say, his own gold. The wording of the proviso does not admit of any such construction. It speaks of primary gold in excess of one hundred grammes, in his possession, custody, or control, which is wide enough to include all kinds of primary gold in possession, custody or control of a certified goldsmith, including that belonging to the certified goldsmith, of purity exceeding fourteen carats, which he may receive and out of which he may prepare new ornaments. The contention of Mr. Sharan is also directly in conflict with the provisions contained in Rule 126-I of Chapter V of the Rules, where a restriction is put on every person other than a dealer to keep more than 50 grammes of primary gold without furnishing a declaration to the Administrator. On the facts found in the instant case, the petitioner was in possession of primary gold in excess of the permissible limit even for a certified goldsmith, and therefore, is guilty of contravention of Rule 126-HH of the Rules, as found by the authorities. Besides that, on the findings, primary gold with foreign markings weighing 116.650 grammes has also been recovered from his possession. 10 In the result, there is no merit in this application and it is dismissed, but without costs. UDAY SINHA, J. 11 I agree.