https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74264 An alleged contravention based on public interception and apprehension was rejected because the Department's version was not proved by reliable evidence; the panchanama was treated as non-substantive, supporting materials weakened the case, and the Section 36 read with Rule 13(1) allegation failed. By contrast, admitted non-entry of three transactions established contravention of Section 55 of the Gold (Control) Act, so confiscation of the gold was sustained. The redemption fine was reduced as excessive in light of the limited proved default, and the penalty was set aside once the more serious allegation failed. en-us Wed, 07 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74264 An alleged contravention based on public interception and apprehension was rejected because the Department's version was not proved by reliable evidence; the panchanama was treated as non-substantive, supporting materials weakened the case, and the Section 36 read with Rule 13(1) allegation failed. By contrast, admitted non-entry of three transactions established contravention of Section 55 of the Gold (Control) Act, so confiscation of the gold was sustained. The redemption fine was reduced as excessive in light of the limited proved default, and the penalty was set aside once the more serious allegation failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 07 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74264