<?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>1988 (8) TMI 309 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74263</link>
    <description>Undisputed seizure of primary gold, ornaments and transaction documents, together with an unretracted statement admitting unlicensed gold dealings, established contraventions under the Gold Control Act and sustained confiscation. The objection that the statement was inadmissible because it was not recorded in the appellants&#039; language was rejected, and the purity of the ornaments was treated as irrelevant to the contravention finding. The redemption fine was separately calibrated and reduced because it had to bear a reasonable relation to the value of the goods. A joint and several penalty was found inappropriate in penal proceedings, so separate penalties were substituted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112542" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (8) TMI 309 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74263</link>
      <description>Undisputed seizure of primary gold, ornaments and transaction documents, together with an unretracted statement admitting unlicensed gold dealings, established contraventions under the Gold Control Act and sustained confiscation. The objection that the statement was inadmissible because it was not recorded in the appellants&#039; language was rejected, and the purity of the ornaments was treated as irrelevant to the contravention finding. The redemption fine was separately calibrated and reduced because it had to bear a reasonable relation to the value of the goods. A joint and several penalty was found inappropriate in penal proceedings, so separate penalties were substituted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74263</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>