https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80135 Section 27(1) of the Gold (Control) Act was not attracted where the dealer was already licensed, but contravention of Section 27(7)(b) was established because the documentary record did not reliably support the claimed dispatch of ornaments outside the licensed premises. The vague purchase order, irregular vouchers and missing supporting documents were insufficient to displace the departmental case. Although the breach was upheld, the consequences were moderated: absolute confiscation of the primary gold was converted into redemption, and the redemption fine and penalty were reduced. On the other issues, Kiran Kumar was exonerated for lack of specific evidence of involvement, while Hirachand's ownership claim over the seized gold and ornaments was rejected. en-us Wed, 02 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:30:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80135 Section 27(1) of the Gold (Control) Act was not attracted where the dealer was already licensed, but contravention of Section 27(7)(b) was established because the documentary record did not reliably support the claimed dispatch of ornaments outside the licensed premises. The vague purchase order, irregular vouchers and missing supporting documents were insufficient to displace the departmental case. Although the breach was upheld, the consequences were moderated: absolute confiscation of the primary gold was converted into redemption, and the redemption fine and penalty were reduced. On the other issues, Kiran Kumar was exonerated for lack of specific evidence of involvement, while Hirachand's ownership claim over the seized gold and ornaments was rejected. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 02 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80135