<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1985 (5) TMI 129 - CUTTACK HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72063</link>
    <description>Primary gold under the Gold (Control) Act requires an unfinished or semi-finished form, and the confiscation record did not contain adequate material showing that the seized churis answered that description; the finding was therefore unsustainable. An article is outside the ornament definition only if its purity, size, weight, description or workmanship shows it is not commonly used as an ornament in the relevant State, but the authorities recorded no clear basis for concluding that the churis were never used as ornaments in Orissa and did not obtain local jeweller evidence. The confiscation and consequential orders could not stand and required fresh adjudication after notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110343" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (5) TMI 129 - CUTTACK HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72063</link>
      <description>Primary gold under the Gold (Control) Act requires an unfinished or semi-finished form, and the confiscation record did not contain adequate material showing that the seized churis answered that description; the finding was therefore unsustainable. An article is outside the ornament definition only if its purity, size, weight, description or workmanship shows it is not commonly used as an ornament in the relevant State, but the authorities recorded no clear basis for concluding that the churis were never used as ornaments in Orissa and did not obtain local jeweller evidence. The confiscation and consequential orders could not stand and required fresh adjudication after notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72063</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>