https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73035 The Department had to first show that the residential portion was being used as business premises, or that the primary gold and ornaments were possessed by or belonged to the appellant in contravention of the Gold Control Act; that initial burden was not discharged on the record. The residential portion was jointly occupied by the appellant and family members, and affidavits supporting the explanation that the ornaments belonged to the womenfolk were not discredited by rebuttal evidence. The further view that the ornaments could serve as a covering or receptacle for primary gold under Section 71(2) was unsustainable, because ornaments could not be treated as such for that purpose. en-us Fri, 02 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73035 The Department had to first show that the residential portion was being used as business premises, or that the primary gold and ornaments were possessed by or belonged to the appellant in contravention of the Gold Control Act; that initial burden was not discharged on the record. The residential portion was jointly occupied by the appellant and family members, and affidavits supporting the explanation that the ornaments belonged to the womenfolk were not discredited by rebuttal evidence. The further view that the ornaments could serve as a covering or receptacle for primary gold under Section 71(2) was unsustainable, because ornaments could not be treated as such for that purpose. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73035