<?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 (3) TMI 281 - CEGAT CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167425</link>
    <description>Non-maintenance of the mandatory G.S. 13 Register under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was treated as a statutory contravention that could sustain confiscation, especially where the appellant&#039;s own statement admitted the ornaments were not entered and a private note book was no substitute. A minor discrepancy in the show cause notice was not treated as fatal, and the Article 20(3) objection failed because the statement was found voluntary. While the violation was upheld, the penalty and redemption fine were reduced on proportionality grounds because the punishment was considered excessive in light of the appellant&#039;s circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2014 13:19:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371526" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (3) TMI 281 - CEGAT CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167425</link>
      <description>Non-maintenance of the mandatory G.S. 13 Register under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was treated as a statutory contravention that could sustain confiscation, especially where the appellant&#039;s own statement admitted the ornaments were not entered and a private note book was no substitute. A minor discrepancy in the show cause notice was not treated as fatal, and the Article 20(3) objection failed because the statement was found voluntary. While the violation was upheld, the penalty and redemption fine were reduced on proportionality grounds because the punishment was considered excessive in light of the appellant&#039;s circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>