https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80176 Classification under the Gold (Control) Act had to rest on a reasoned appraisal of expert evidence and the statutory categories, not on visual inspection alone. The 87 bangles, 2 pairs of gold bangles and one pair of gold karas were held to be gold ornaments because the expert opinions on shape, finish, polish, purity, workmanship and use supported that classification, so they were not liable to confiscation as primary gold. The 15 gold mohars and one gold Swastika coin were treated as gold articles rather than primary gold or ornaments, and therefore were also not liable to confiscation. The confiscation order and penalty could not stand. en-us Mon, 09 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:09:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80176 Classification under the Gold (Control) Act had to rest on a reasoned appraisal of expert evidence and the statutory categories, not on visual inspection alone. The 87 bangles, 2 pairs of gold bangles and one pair of gold karas were held to be gold ornaments because the expert opinions on shape, finish, polish, purity, workmanship and use supported that classification, so they were not liable to confiscation as primary gold. The 15 gold mohars and one gold Swastika coin were treated as gold articles rather than primary gold or ornaments, and therefore were also not liable to confiscation. The confiscation order and penalty could not stand. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80176