https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74306 Section 30 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 requires a licensed dealer to stamp ornaments made, manufactured, or prepared by him certifying purity; unstamped old and used ornaments purchased by the dealer were therefore not shown to attract that obligation, so confiscation was unsustainable. An alleged stock shortage under Section 74 also failed because the department did not prove illegal disposal or otherwise establish the ingredients of contravention, so penalty on that basis could not stand. The same acts could not be punished cumulatively against both the partnership firm and its partners, so the composite penalty structure was impermissible. The confiscation and penalties were set aside. en-us Tue, 17 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jun 2011 10:58:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74306 Section 30 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 requires a licensed dealer to stamp ornaments made, manufactured, or prepared by him certifying purity; unstamped old and used ornaments purchased by the dealer were therefore not shown to attract that obligation, so confiscation was unsustainable. An alleged stock shortage under Section 74 also failed because the department did not prove illegal disposal or otherwise establish the ingredients of contravention, so penalty on that basis could not stand. The same acts could not be punished cumulatively against both the partnership firm and its partners, so the composite penalty structure was impermissible. The confiscation and penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74306