<?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>1986 (8) TMI 230 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72544</link>
    <description>Failure to make mandatory entries in the statutory GS 12 register was treated as contravention of the Gold (Control) Act&#039;s account-keeping scheme, making the gold liable to confiscation and the dealer liable to penalty. Seized private records were held independently usable in departmental adjudication where their entries supported undisclosed gold transactions, even without separate corroboration. The Tribunal also held that, absent a statutory bar, one consolidated penalty could be imposed for multiple contraventions, with the quantum left to judicial discretion. Challenges confined to factual appreciation and misdescription of the rule did not raise a referable question of law, so no reference lay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110823" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (8) TMI 230 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72544</link>
      <description>Failure to make mandatory entries in the statutory GS 12 register was treated as contravention of the Gold (Control) Act&#039;s account-keeping scheme, making the gold liable to confiscation and the dealer liable to penalty. Seized private records were held independently usable in departmental adjudication where their entries supported undisclosed gold transactions, even without separate corroboration. The Tribunal also held that, absent a statutory bar, one consolidated penalty could be imposed for multiple contraventions, with the quantum left to judicial discretion. Challenges confined to factual appreciation and misdescription of the rule did not raise a referable question of law, so no reference lay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72544</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>