https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91280 A penalty under Section 74 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 was treated as unavailable where ornaments had been stamped under Section 30 but the assayed purity was lower than the purity stamped. The note states that Section 30 required stamping by a licensed dealer certifying purity, and the mere mismatch between stamped and actual purity was not treated as a contravention on the statutory scheme then in force. As confiscation under Section 71 depended on a contravention of the Act, and penalty under Section 74 could follow only where the gold was liable to confiscation, the absence of contravention meant neither confiscation nor penalty was sustainable. en-us Sat, 17 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:32:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91280 A penalty under Section 74 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 was treated as unavailable where ornaments had been stamped under Section 30 but the assayed purity was lower than the purity stamped. The note states that Section 30 required stamping by a licensed dealer certifying purity, and the mere mismatch between stamped and actual purity was not treated as a contravention on the statutory scheme then in force. As confiscation under Section 71 depended on a contravention of the Act, and penalty under Section 74 could follow only where the gold was liable to confiscation, the absence of contravention meant neither confiscation nor penalty was sustainable. Case-Laws Customs Sat, 17 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91280