https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80039 Possession of gold ornaments was not enough to establish contravention of Section 8(2) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, because the statutory mental element-knowledge or reason to believe that the ornaments were required to be declared and had not been included-was not proved. A charge under Section 27(1) also failed because dealing as a gold dealer requires proof of business activity by way of a series of transactions, and the record showed no customer evidence, trading records, or other indicia of business. Confiscation was therefore unsustainable and the jewellery was directed to be returned. en-us Mon, 26 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:43:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80039 Possession of gold ornaments was not enough to establish contravention of Section 8(2) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, because the statutory mental element-knowledge or reason to believe that the ornaments were required to be declared and had not been included-was not proved. A charge under Section 27(1) also failed because dealing as a gold dealer requires proof of business activity by way of a series of transactions, and the record showed no customer evidence, trading records, or other indicia of business. Confiscation was therefore unsustainable and the jewellery was directed to be returned. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 26 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80039