https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41292 The HC upheld the finding that the seized articles were primary gold rather than finished ornaments, treating the classification as a factual conclusion based on purity, workmanship, physical condition, and traders' records, and declining to reappraise that evidence in writ jurisdiction. It also held that the show-cause notice and adjudication were not barred by delay or repeal, because the six-month limit under the Gold Control Act did not extinguish liabilities incurred under the repealed Gold Control Rules and the repeal-and-saving provisions, read with section 6 of the General Clauses Act, preserved confiscation and penalty proceedings for earlier breaches. The writ petitions were therefore rejected. en-us Fri, 08 Dec 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:42:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41292 The HC upheld the finding that the seized articles were primary gold rather than finished ornaments, treating the classification as a factual conclusion based on purity, workmanship, physical condition, and traders' records, and declining to reappraise that evidence in writ jurisdiction. It also held that the show-cause notice and adjudication were not barred by delay or repeal, because the six-month limit under the Gold Control Act did not extinguish liabilities incurred under the repealed Gold Control Rules and the repeal-and-saving provisions, read with section 6 of the General Clauses Act, preserved confiscation and penalty proceedings for earlier breaches. The writ petitions were therefore rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Dec 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41292