https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351438 Confiscation proceedings begun under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 had to be concluded under those Rules, because the repeal and saving provisions, read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, preserved pending proceedings and Section 116(2) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 did not alter the governing law. The redemption fine in lieu of confiscation was not controlled by Section 73 of the Gold (Control) Act, as that provision applied only to confiscations under that Act; the fine was to be assessed with reference to the value of the gold when the redemption option was offered. Because the proceedings had been prolonged for years, interest was directed on the redemption fine to prevent unjust enrichment from delay. en-us Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351438 Confiscation proceedings begun under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 had to be concluded under those Rules, because the repeal and saving provisions, read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, preserved pending proceedings and Section 116(2) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 did not alter the governing law. The redemption fine in lieu of confiscation was not controlled by Section 73 of the Gold (Control) Act, as that provision applied only to confiscations under that Act; the fine was to be assessed with reference to the value of the gold when the redemption option was offered. Because the proceedings had been prolonged for years, interest was directed on the redemption fine to prevent unjust enrichment from delay. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351438