Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1989 (1) TMI 260

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are that out of the total stock-in-trade of gold and gold ornaments weighing 16165.450 gms, the Gold Control Officers found 267.600 gms of gold ornaments unstamped with the purity-marking as per the provisions of Section 30 of the Gold Control Act, 1968. The said 267.600 gms of gold ornaments were seized by the officers for the alleged violation of the provisions of Section 30 of the Gold Control Act. The officers also further noticed alleged shortage of gold and gold ornaments totally weighing 949.500 gms in the total stock-in-trade of gold ornaments. The Department therefore issued a show-cause-notice inter alia alleging against the appellant firm various contraventions of the provisions of the Gold Control Act. The Appellants denied the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... p firm as well as upon the partners of the firm is illegal and unsustainable in law since it amounts to double punishment for the same cause of action. In this case, no penalty is leviable since the appellant has not committed any contraventions of the provisions of the Gold Control Act. 4. In the matter of stamping of purity on gold ornaments, the Govt. of India had issued the following guidelines in 1979 while implementing the provisions of Section 30 of the Gold Control Act, 1968. (1) No checks will be made by the Gold Control Officers except on receipt of a written complaints from a customers regarding non-stamping or wrong stamping of purity; (2) No action will be taken if the matter could be settled amicably between the parties .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t. of India s instructions issued under F.No. 131/12/79-GCII dated 25-9-1979, the said instructions are redundant after a period of nine years and also such instructions have been issued in specific cases and do not have a general law nor is above law even otherwise executive instructions do not supercede the legal provisions enshrined in the statute, which is an Act by the Parliament. 7. It is most unfortunate as well as shocking too that a subordinate officer of the Central Government of the rank of the Deputy Collector openly declares the order and instructions of Central Government as redundant. The said Deputy Collector also tells the Central Government that the Act is supreme and not the order and instructions of the Govt. of India .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ctured by the Appellants but purchased as old and used from the customers, there is no legal obligation to stamp such old and used gold ornaments certifying the purity of gold. It is not enough to stamp the gold ornaments certifying the purity of gold but it is the legal obligation under Section 89 of the Gold Control Act to stamp the accurate and exact purity of gold. The exact and accurate purity of the gold ornaments can be ascertained only after melting of the gold ornaments. Melting of gold ornaments amounts to making primary gold and making or manufacturing primary gold is prohibited under Sections 11 and 29 of the Gold Control Act. In the circumstances, it is impossible to stamp correctly the purity of gold on the gold ornaments whic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ase of Tarak Nath Sen v. Union of India has held that: Although a firm in mercantile usage, has a personality of its own, strictly in the eye of law, it is not a legal entity like a natural person. A partnership is not a person within the meaning of Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act. Therefore, the rights and obligations of firm are really rights and obligations of the individual partners of the firm. Therefore, no exception can be taken to imposition of penalties individually upon them. But since the firm is not legal entity and Section 140 of the Customs Act is inapplicable to the adjudication proceedings, imposition of double punishment on the partners for the same sets of acts. In view of the discussions above, I find tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates