TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (2) TMI 113
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n pursuance of the powers given by the said Ordinance, Defence of India Rules, 1962 were framed (to be hereinafter called the "Rules"). The Ordinance in question was replaced by the Defence of India Act 1962 (Act I of 1962). That Act came into force on December 12, 1962. The "Rules" framed earlier were continued under that Act. 2. By a notification published in the Gazette of India on January 9, 1963, the "Rules" were amended by in incorporating therein Part XII-A. The same is called as "Gold Control Rules, 1963". Rule 126(1) of those rules required every person not being a dealer to make a declaration within 30 days from the commencement of Part XII-A of the "Rules" or within such period as the Central Government by notification specify, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scated Under Rule 126-M of the Gold Control Rules and (2) why penalty Under Section 126-L(16) of the said rules should not be imposed on him. 4. The appellant challenged the validity of that notice before the High Court of Gujarat by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court upheld the validity of the notice in so far as related to the confiscation of the gold seized but ruled that the proceedings relating to the imposition of penalty were invalid in law. After the judgment of the High Court, the Collector of Central Excise by means of his communication dated December 6, 1968, informed the appellant that the previous notice is confined to show cause as to why the gold seized should not be confiscated. O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5, 1965, initiating proceedings for forfeiting the gold seized must be deemed to have continued. The provisions in the "Rules" relating to forfeiture are not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Gold (Control) Ordinance, 1968. 6. On August 24, 1968, the Parliament passed the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The same received the assent of the President on September 1, 1968 and came into force on and from that date. By Section 116(1) of that Act Gold (Control) Ordinance, 1968 was repealed. Section 116(2) provided : Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken including any notification, order or appointment made, direction given, notice, licence or certificate issued, permission, authorisation or exemption granted, con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of primary gold are inconsistent with the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act and therefore the notice issued under the "Rules" cannot be considered as being continued under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. 8. The above contention is untenable. There are no provisions in the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 which are inconsistent with Rule 126(1)(10) of the "Rules". That being so, action taken under that rule must be deemed to be continuing in view of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It is true that Gold (Control) Act, 1968 does not purport to incorporate into that Act the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. But the provisions therein are not inconsistent with the provisions in Section 6 of the General C....