TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een heard in a contested one, we do not consider it necessary to issue any Rule. In our view this case is concluded by findings of fact. Therefore, we do not consider this to be a fit one by calling upon the Tribunal to state the case. 2. Mr. Lahiry appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the finding that the Petitioners were dealers was perverse and not supported by any evidence. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s could have reached the conclusion that the petitioners were dealers. 5. The other submission made on behalf of the petitioners was that the statement of Paresh Nath Shaw was not recorded in accordance with Section 70 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The officer, who made the seizure on the Act, did not himself record the statement of Paresh Nath Shaw, who was one of the partners of the Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
