TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the order passed by the Director of Publications was without jurisdiction for want of valid appointment or authorisation under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
Analysis: The Notification and Board order relied upon by the department were issued under the Central excise law and were limited to conferring Collector of Central Excise powers for the purposes of investigation and adjudication under that enactment. They did not amount to an appointment under Section 4 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, which required the Central Government to appoint Gold Control Officers by notification. The mere fact that an officer held or exercised Central Excise powers did not make him a Gold Control Officer competent to adjudicate gold control cases. In the absence of any notification appointing the officer as a Gold Control Officer, the adjudication could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The impugned order was held to be without jurisdiction and not passed by the proper officer competent to decide the matter under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is valid only if made by an officer duly appointed as a Gold Control Officer by the Central Government under the Act; Central Excise powers, by themselves, do not confer such jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
