Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, where gold ornaments and gold articles were both possessed, the limits in clause (b) of section 16(5) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 applied exclusively and the lower limit for articles in clause (a) could not be imported so as to sustain confiscation, redemption fine and penalty.
Analysis: Section 16(5)(b) governs cases where both ornaments and articles are owned, possessed, held or controlled together, and the statutory limit is to be applied to the combined holding as such. The separate limit for articles under section 16(5)(a) is not to be read into clause (b). The Tribunal adopted the prevailing judicial view that, once clause (b) applies, the holding cannot be broken up into a notional portion of ornaments and a separate portion of articles for testing compliance under clause (a). On the facts, the held gold sovereigns, when added to the ornaments already accepted as within permissible limits, did not exceed the aggregate limit applicable to the family or individual concerned.
Conclusion: The confiscation of the gold sovereigns, the redemption fine and the personal penalties were not sustainable, and relief was granted to the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: Where both gold ornaments and gold articles are jointly possessed, compliance must be tested under section 16(5)(b) on the combined holding, and the separate article limit in section 16(5)(a) cannot be superimposed to create a contravention.