https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42528 Under the Gold Control regime, search power could be exercised only by a Gold Control Officer specifically empowered by a valid Central Government notification, and the record did not show that the Assistant Collector had written authority to issue the warrant or delegate the search; the search and seizure were therefore invalid. The Deputy Collector also lacked jurisdiction to confiscate the gold ornaments or impose personal penalty because the governing notification confined that power to cases where the value of gold liable to confiscation did not exceed Rs. 25,000, while the seized ornaments were valued higher. The impugned search, confiscation, penalty and connected criminal proceedings could not be sustained, and refund of amounts recovered was directed. en-us Wed, 19 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:39:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42528 Under the Gold Control regime, search power could be exercised only by a Gold Control Officer specifically empowered by a valid Central Government notification, and the record did not show that the Assistant Collector had written authority to issue the warrant or delegate the search; the search and seizure were therefore invalid. The Deputy Collector also lacked jurisdiction to confiscate the gold ornaments or impose personal penalty because the governing notification confined that power to cases where the value of gold liable to confiscation did not exceed Rs. 25,000, while the seized ornaments were valued higher. The impugned search, confiscation, penalty and connected criminal proceedings could not be sustained, and refund of amounts recovered was directed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42528