https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80356 The Supreme Court held that, on the evidence, the appellant was not shown to be carrying on business outside the licensed premises because the licence covered the entire building by a single municipal number and there was no proof that the third floor fell outside that description. The mere fact that the showroom was on the ground floor did not establish that accounted gold ornaments could not be stored in another room in the same building. The Court also reaffirmed that where two views are reasonably possible, an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal simply because it prefers a different view. The High Court's reversal of the acquittal was therefore unsustainable. en-us Fri, 02 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80356 The Supreme Court held that, on the evidence, the appellant was not shown to be carrying on business outside the licensed premises because the licence covered the entire building by a single municipal number and there was no proof that the third floor fell outside that description. The mere fact that the showroom was on the ground floor did not establish that accounted gold ornaments could not be stored in another room in the same building. The Court also reaffirmed that where two views are reasonably possible, an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal simply because it prefers a different view. The High Court's reversal of the acquittal was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80356