https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80145 A rectification application cannot be used to reopen findings based on appreciation of evidence, such as whether seized gold was refined gold and whether melting formed part of the refining process under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The earlier view that melting is part of refining and that the gold remained subject to the Act was not shown to contain any mistake apparent from the record, so that challenge failed. The Act also treats a partnership firm as a person capable of being proceeded against, and separate penalties may be imposed on both the firm and its partner where distinct acts or omissions are found, so the plea of double punishment was rejected. en-us Wed, 07 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:51:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80145 A rectification application cannot be used to reopen findings based on appreciation of evidence, such as whether seized gold was refined gold and whether melting formed part of the refining process under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The earlier view that melting is part of refining and that the gold remained subject to the Act was not shown to contain any mistake apparent from the record, so that challenge failed. The Act also treats a partnership firm as a person capable of being proceeded against, and separate penalties may be imposed on both the firm and its partner where distinct acts or omissions are found, so the plea of double punishment was rejected. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 07 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80145