<?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>1984 (10) TMI 131 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72225</link>
    <description>Licensed gold dealers were permitted, subject to proper accounting, to send ornaments through travelling salesmen for inter-State sale, and mere movement of goods in that manner was not treated as a contravention of Section 27(7)(b) of the Gold Control Act. The note also states that technical defects in vouchers and registers, such as incomplete descriptions, identical gross and net weight entries, and non-entry in a tour register, did not by themselves establish a breach warranting confiscation or personal penalty where the quantities tallied and no substitution or mala fides was shown. On that footing, confiscation and penalty were not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (10) TMI 131 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72225</link>
      <description>Licensed gold dealers were permitted, subject to proper accounting, to send ornaments through travelling salesmen for inter-State sale, and mere movement of goods in that manner was not treated as a contravention of Section 27(7)(b) of the Gold Control Act. The note also states that technical defects in vouchers and registers, such as incomplete descriptions, identical gross and net weight entries, and non-entry in a tour register, did not by themselves establish a breach warranting confiscation or personal penalty where the quantities tallied and no substitution or mala fides was shown. On that footing, confiscation and penalty were not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72225</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>