https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165901 Seizure of gold sovereigns could not justify confiscation and penalty where the revisional authority proceeded on the incorrect factual assumption that no ornaments were in the petitioners' possession. Section 16(5) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was treated as clear: clause (a) applies where only articles are possessed, while clause (b) applies where ornaments, or both articles and ornaments, are possessed. The fifty grammes limit in clause (a) could not be imported into clause (b merely because a literal reading may seem anomalous. The confiscation and penalty orders were therefore unsustainable. en-us Tue, 14 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Aug 2014 18:13:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165901 Seizure of gold sovereigns could not justify confiscation and penalty where the revisional authority proceeded on the incorrect factual assumption that no ornaments were in the petitioners' possession. Section 16(5) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was treated as clear: clause (a) applies where only articles are possessed, while clause (b) applies where ornaments, or both articles and ornaments, are possessed. The fifty grammes limit in clause (a) could not be imported into clause (b merely because a literal reading may seem anomalous. The confiscation and penalty orders were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165901