https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40599 Failure to declare excess gold ornaments within the prescribed time under the Gold Control Act, 1968 was treated as a statutory default, and ignorance of that obligation was not accepted as a defence. The Court held that mens rea was not an essential ingredient for offences under Section 85(viii) and Section 16(g) read with Section 86, and that prior disclosure to income-tax or wealth-tax authorities did not cure non-compliance with the gold control declaration requirement. On that basis, the acquittal was unsustainable and the direction to return the confiscated jewels could not stand. en-us Thu, 04 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 May 2010 17:11:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40599 Failure to declare excess gold ornaments within the prescribed time under the Gold Control Act, 1968 was treated as a statutory default, and ignorance of that obligation was not accepted as a defence. The Court held that mens rea was not an essential ingredient for offences under Section 85(viii) and Section 16(g) read with Section 86, and that prior disclosure to income-tax or wealth-tax authorities did not cure non-compliance with the gold control declaration requirement. On that basis, the acquittal was unsustainable and the direction to return the confiscated jewels could not stand. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40599