Seizure limitation under section 110(2) bars late extension notices, leading to confiscation relief while penalty remains.

Where seized gold is retained beyond the initial six-month period, the statutory notice for extension must be issued before that period expires and to the person from whose possession the goods were seized. On the facts discussed, the only contemporaneous record, the mahazar, was treated as unreliable because of date discrepancies, and the extension notice was issued after expiry of six months without any showing that delay in service was attributable to the appellant. The confiscation was therefore set aside for breach of the limitation requirement under section 110(2), while the penalty under section 112(a) remained undisturbed, resulting in only partial relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the seized gold and the penalty could be sustained when the notice for extension under the seizure-related limitation provision was issued after the expiry of six months from the date of seizure.

Analysis: The goods were admittedly seized from the appellant, but the sole contemporaneous record relied upon by the Revenue was the mahazar, whose evidentiary value was found doubtful because of material date discrepancies. More importantly, the statutory scheme required that notice proposing extension of the six-month period be issued to the person from whose possession the goods were seized before expiry of the original period. The notice in this case was issued after the expiry of six months, and there was no showing that any delay in service was attributable to the appellant. The circular relied upon also reiterated the same limitation requirement.

Conclusion: The confiscation order was set aside for breach of the limitation requirement under section 110(2), and the appeal succeeded to that extent. The penalty under section 112(a) was left undisturbed, so the appellant obtained only partial relief.

---