https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416596 Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 requires prior notice to the actual owner before confiscation of primary gold or imposition of penalty. On the facts stated, the respondent had identified the gold as belonging to his wife, so she was the asserted owner and should have received notice. The provision was not read as extending "owner" to a mere possessor or ostensible owner. The Tribunal's view that the absence of notice to the wife affected the confiscation was treated as a plausible legal position, and the Revenue's request for reference was refused. en-us Thu, 16 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Jan 2022 08:26:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416596 Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 requires prior notice to the actual owner before confiscation of primary gold or imposition of penalty. On the facts stated, the respondent had identified the gold as belonging to his wife, so she was the asserted owner and should have received notice. The provision was not read as extending "owner" to a mere possessor or ostensible owner. The Tribunal's view that the absence of notice to the wife affected the confiscation was treated as a plausible legal position, and the Revenue's request for reference was refused. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416596