<?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>1985 (1) TMI 323 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167383</link>
    <description>Confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act was limited to gold directly connected with a proved contravention, because Section 71 did not authorise seizure of an entire stock in trade for a licensing irregularity. The licensing record showed that the business was carried on under the original name and style, the change in constitution had been intimated to the Department, and renewals continued for years despite the authority&#039;s own misdescription in the licence records. Even if there was a technical breach of licensing requirements, it could not justify confiscation of the whole stock. The confiscation order was set aside, and the gold was to be restored or the redemption fine refunded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:41:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (1) TMI 323 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167383</link>
      <description>Confiscation under the Gold (Control) Act was limited to gold directly connected with a proved contravention, because Section 71 did not authorise seizure of an entire stock in trade for a licensing irregularity. The licensing record showed that the business was carried on under the original name and style, the change in constitution had been intimated to the Department, and renewals continued for years despite the authority&#039;s own misdescription in the licence records. Even if there was a technical breach of licensing requirements, it could not justify confiscation of the whole stock. The confiscation order was set aside, and the gold was to be restored or the redemption fine refunded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167383</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>