https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41030 Offences under the Customs Act and the Gold Control Act were held to be distinct because each provision contained different essential ingredients: the Customs Act offence turned on possession of goods liable to confiscation due to unlawful importation, while the Gold Control Act offence turned on ownership or possession of primary gold without requiring proof of importation. A conviction under one therefore did not eliminate the need for punishment under the other, and a separate sentence under the Gold Control Act was required. The proceeding, though filed as an appeal, was treated as a criminal revision because it was within revisional time, allowing correction of the omission in sentencing. en-us Mon, 17 Dec 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 May 2010 11:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41030 Offences under the Customs Act and the Gold Control Act were held to be distinct because each provision contained different essential ingredients: the Customs Act offence turned on possession of goods liable to confiscation due to unlawful importation, while the Gold Control Act offence turned on ownership or possession of primary gold without requiring proof of importation. A conviction under one therefore did not eliminate the need for punishment under the other, and a separate sentence under the Gold Control Act was required. The proceeding, though filed as an appeal, was treated as a criminal revision because it was within revisional time, allowing correction of the omission in sentencing. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 17 Dec 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41030