https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80141 In penal proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act, the Department could not alter the foundation of the charge at the appellate stage by shifting from possession of gold articles without declaration to a new case that the seized goods were primary gold; the proposed remand on that inconsistent basis was therefore unjustified. The evidence also failed to prove beyond doubt that the seized gold bangles were primary gold, as the record supported a finished article rather than unfinished or semi-finished gold. Applying the rule that, where two views are possible in penal matters, the one favourable to the noticee must be adopted, the impugned appellate order was sustained and the departmental challenge failed. en-us Wed, 11 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:43:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80141 In penal proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act, the Department could not alter the foundation of the charge at the appellate stage by shifting from possession of gold articles without declaration to a new case that the seized goods were primary gold; the proposed remand on that inconsistent basis was therefore unjustified. The evidence also failed to prove beyond doubt that the seized gold bangles were primary gold, as the record supported a finished article rather than unfinished or semi-finished gold. Applying the rule that, where two views are possible in penal matters, the one favourable to the noticee must be adopted, the impugned appellate order was sustained and the departmental challenge failed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 11 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80141