TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Gold Act Violations: Individual Penalties Imposed on Father and Son</h1> <h3>PRASANTA KUMAR DAS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE</h3> The Tribunal set aside the joint penalty imposed on a father and son under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and imposed individual penalties of Rs. 50,000 on ... Confiscation Issues:1. Confiscation of gold ornaments and sovereigns under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.2. Validity of the penalty imposed jointly on the appellants.3. Assessment of fine and penalty under the Act.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged an order confiscating gold ornaments and sovereigns, imposing a fine, and penalty under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The appellants, a father and son, were found in possession of gold items without proper licensing. The son, a pawnbroker, admitted to dealing in gold business without a license, taking orders, and manufacturing ornaments. The authorities seized gold items and account books, leading to the legal proceedings. The appellants contested the confiscation, fine, and penalty, claiming lack of evidence and excessive punishment.2. The appellants argued against the joint penalty imposed, claiming it was impermissible under the law. The Tribunal found the evidence supported individual penalties for contraventions under the Act. The appellants were found to have transacted in gold without a valid license, using a certified goldsmith as a front. The Tribunal set aside the joint penalty and imposed individual penalties of Rs. 50,000 on the son and Rs. 25,000 on the father based on the established contraventions.3. In assessing the fine and penalty, the Tribunal considered the quantity and purity of the gold items seized, involvement of third parties' ornaments, and the appellants' unauthorized transactions. The fine was reduced to Rs. 30,000, and the appellants were directed to exercise redemption options within a specified period. The Tribunal emphasized the seriousness of the contraventions and the need for individual penalties based on the evidence presented. The appeals were dismissed with the modifications in fine and penalty.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
