<?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 (8) TMI 203 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72280</link>
    <description>Primary gold remained independently prohibited under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, because Section 8(1)(i) imposes a direct ban on owning or possessing primary gold unless a specific exception applies. The declaration provisions in Section 16 were treated as limited mainly to articles and ornaments, so failure or non-action under that route did not legalise possession of primary gold. Where the gold did not fall within the Section 12 exception, confiscation under Section 71(1) followed from the statutory breach. Once the goods were contraband, confiscation did not amount to unconstitutional deprivation of property, and the constitutional challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110559" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (8) TMI 203 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72280</link>
      <description>Primary gold remained independently prohibited under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, because Section 8(1)(i) imposes a direct ban on owning or possessing primary gold unless a specific exception applies. The declaration provisions in Section 16 were treated as limited mainly to articles and ornaments, so failure or non-action under that route did not legalise possession of primary gold. Where the gold did not fall within the Section 12 exception, confiscation under Section 71(1) followed from the statutory breach. Once the goods were contraband, confiscation did not amount to unconstitutional deprivation of property, and the constitutional challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72280</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>