Judgment :- The writ petition is directed against an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, dated 31-7-1986. That order was passed on an appeal filed by the petitioners against an order of the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, dated 27-6-1985 absolutely confiscating 707.880 grams of gold in the form of 12 crude bangles, exercising power under Section 71(1) of the Gold Control Act and further levying a penalty of Rs. 40, 000/- on one of the petitioners and Rs. 10, 000/- on the other petitioner under Section 74 of the Gold Control Act. 2.The facts leading to the above confiscation are as follows : On 2-7-1984 the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalore Unit intercepted the first petitioner. A search of the first petitioner resulted in recovery of the subject gold bangles. Since the first petitioner was not a licenced gold dealer nor a certified gold-smith, the gold was seized under a mahazar. The explanation of the first petitioner was that he had come to Bangalore to see his sister and that his father, viz., the second petitioner is a gold dealer in Poona. According to the first petitioner, the gold was for the purpose of making ornaments. It was the further case of the petitioners that in the State of Maharashtra women generally wear such crude ornaments made of primary gold. Before the Collector of Central Excise, four witnesses were examined including the Seizing Officer, viz., the Superintendent of the department. On behalf of the petitioners, a defence witness was also examined. On production of the gold bangles by the Superintendent, it was found that the bangles had been manufactured by the process of die-casting. They appeared to be crude ornaments. One D.N. Krishnamoorthy, a gold dealer from Bangalore with ten years experience gave evidence to show that the bangles cannot be used as such, because, they have sharp edges which will injure the skin. He was of the opinion that the bangles were not really ornaments. He also gave evidence to show that normally 10% copper is added to the 24 carrot gold to bring down the purity to 22 carrot. This is done, to give strength to the ornament. Mr. Bhadresh Amritlal Soni, gave evidence to show that the bangles were of 96 to 97 per cent purity and that such type of bangles are produced in Poona. This is done, to give strength to the ornament. Mr. Bhadresh Amritlal Soni, gave evidence to show that the bangles were of 96 to 97 per cent purity and that such type of bangles are produced in Poona. It was his further case that the second petitioner had given him the necessary gold for manufacturing the said ornaments. He was, however, not able to identify the bangles, as the bangles manufactured by him. 3.The next witness, Dinesh A. Soni is also a gold-smith in Poona and he deposed that he had received gold from the second petitioner for the manufacture of the bangles. He was also not able to identify the bangles manufactured by him. The defence witness one Champalal Achaldas Bagla deposed that the bangles made out of gold with 99.5% purity are normally worn by the people in Maharashtra. He admitted that at the instance of the petitioners he had come to Bangalore to give evidence. It is on this evidence that the Collector came to the conclusion that the subject bangles were really primary gold and therefore, liable to be confiscated. Accordingly, he passed the order to which I have already made a reference. 4.When the matter came up before the Tribunal, the members of the Tribunal after hearing the arguments of both sides observed that they would render a judgment only after the inspection of the said ornament. Accordingly, the gold bangles were produced before the Tribunal. After inspecting the ornament, the Tribunal observed, "On careful examinations of the gold produced before us we are satisfied that it is primary gold in the shape of crude and not ornaments as contended by the appellants. The gold under seizure clearly comes within the mischief of the definition of" primary gold' under Section 2(r) of the Act.' If the Tribunal had considered the evidence adduced in the case apart from their opinion on personal inspection, one cannot have a grievance. The gold under seizure clearly comes within the mischief of the definition of" primary gold' under Section 2(r) of the Act.' If the Tribunal had considered the evidence adduced in the case apart from their opinion on personal inspection, one cannot have a grievance. On the other hand, the Tribunal totally ignored the evidence on record and in fact, says: "Since we feel personally satisfied that the gold under seizure is only primary gold on personal examination of the gold in question, we are not adverting to the opinion of the gold-smith and other people with reference to the nature of the gold." No other reason is given by the Tribunal for confirming the order of the Collector with the modification that the petitioners should be given an option to redeem the gold on payment of the redemption fine. Redemption fine amount was fixed at Rs. 75, 000/-. Penalty on the first petitioner was reduced to Rs. 25, 000/- and the penalty on the second petitioner was confirmed. 5.After giving my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by both the Counsel, I am clearly of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred in law in not adverting to the evidence adduced in the case, but merely, resting its order on its personal inspection of the gold. Mr. Jayachandran, for the respondents brings to my notice that if the matter is remanded, the gold may not be available for further inspection because, the same would have been sent to the mint, if not redeemed by the petitioners. I am of the opinion that the availability of the gold bangles is not really necessary for consideration of the case by the Tribunal, because, there was sufficient evidence available before the Collector. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the case back to the Tribunal to decide the issue on the basis of the evidence adduced before the Collector. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.