https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73372 Penalty under the Gold (Control) Act was considered in appeal, but enhancement was refused because the respondents were only employees acting as carriers of contraband gold for petty monetary consideration. The imposition of penalty was treated as a matter of quasi-judicial discretion, and interference would be justified only where the discretion was patently perverse or demonstrably arbitrary. On the facts, increasing the penalty was seen as serving no practical purpose, especially since there was no material showing recovery of the amount or any effective deterrent from a higher civil penalty on persons of straw. The original order was left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 17 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73372 Penalty under the Gold (Control) Act was considered in appeal, but enhancement was refused because the respondents were only employees acting as carriers of contraband gold for petty monetary consideration. The imposition of penalty was treated as a matter of quasi-judicial discretion, and interference would be justified only where the discretion was patently perverse or demonstrably arbitrary. On the facts, increasing the penalty was seen as serving no practical purpose, especially since there was no material showing recovery of the amount or any effective deterrent from a higher civil penalty on persons of straw. The original order was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73372