https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73611 Section 6(2) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 applied only to transactions involving receipt, delivery or sale of gold in the context of hypothecation, pledge, mortgage or charge; as the record did not show that the ornaments were pledged or otherwise brought within that setting, the charge was not established. Section 27(1) also required affirmative proof of sale or intended sale, and mere possession of gold ornaments by a pawn broker was insufficient where no test purchase was made and no sale instance was proved. In penal proceedings, suspicion cannot replace proof, and the benefit of doubt applies when statutory ingredients are not established. en-us Mon, 04 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73611 Section 6(2) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 applied only to transactions involving receipt, delivery or sale of gold in the context of hypothecation, pledge, mortgage or charge; as the record did not show that the ornaments were pledged or otherwise brought within that setting, the charge was not established. Section 27(1) also required affirmative proof of sale or intended sale, and mere possession of gold ornaments by a pawn broker was insufficient where no test purchase was made and no sale instance was proved. In penal proceedings, suspicion cannot replace proof, and the benefit of doubt applies when statutory ingredients are not established. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73611