Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1979 (11) TMI 105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(viii) and (ix) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, Section 27(1) lays down that - "Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no person shall commence or carry on business as a dealer unless he holds a valid licence issued in this behalf by the Administrator. Sec. 85(viii) says that whoever in contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rule .or order made thereunder owns or has in his possession, custody or control any articles or ornament shall without prejudice to any other action that may be taken under the Act be punishable with imprisonment. Sec. 85(ix) provides for punishment of such person who carries on any business or transaction in gold for which a licence or certificate is required to be obtained by or under the Act. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ents as presents from his own employer and that Ex. P. 3 had been obtained from by coercion and threat. 3. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, who adjudicated the case, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000 and ordered confiscation of all the jewels. Subsequently there was a revision which has been allowed by the Government of India on 21-8-1979, observing that the Government of India carefully considered the submission made by the accused in his revision application at the time of the personal hearing and examined the records, that the statement alleged to have been made by the accused before PW 2 has to be ignored, that Mr. R. Ananthapadmanabhan, the only witness to the statement Ex. P 3, was examined at the time of adjudication, that he....