<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1981 (8) TMI 217 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165698</link>
    <description>Under section 16 of the Gold (Control) Act, gold ornaments held in different legal capacities are to be assessed separately for declaration purposes unless the statute expressly requires aggregation. The Act&#039;s scheme, including the residuary capacity provision and the separate exemption limits, recognises that personal holdings and holdings as pledgee or pawnee are distinct and cannot be clubbed together. Section 16(7) supports this separate-capacity treatment, and an administrative trade notice cannot override the statutory language. On this analysis, no declaration was required on the stated facts, and confiscation and penalty would be unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2014 15:18:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=361612" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (8) TMI 217 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165698</link>
      <description>Under section 16 of the Gold (Control) Act, gold ornaments held in different legal capacities are to be assessed separately for declaration purposes unless the statute expressly requires aggregation. The Act&#039;s scheme, including the residuary capacity provision and the separate exemption limits, recognises that personal holdings and holdings as pledgee or pawnee are distinct and cannot be clubbed together. Section 16(7) supports this separate-capacity treatment, and an administrative trade notice cannot override the statutory language. On this analysis, no declaration was required on the stated facts, and confiscation and penalty would be unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165698</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>