https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72066 Concurrent factual findings that the seized primary gold was in unauthorised possession were upheld, and writ interference was declined because the evidence supported the contravention and the court would not reappreciate those findings. The revisional authority was not required to issue a fresh show-cause notice or grant another opportunity when it merely relied on additional supporting circumstances and did not introduce a new charge, so no prejudice was shown. The option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation was treated as discretionary, not mandatory, and could not be claimed as of right after the confiscation and penalty were sustained. en-us Thu, 04 Feb 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 May 2011 12:03:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72066 Concurrent factual findings that the seized primary gold was in unauthorised possession were upheld, and writ interference was declined because the evidence supported the contravention and the court would not reappreciate those findings. The revisional authority was not required to issue a fresh show-cause notice or grant another opportunity when it merely relied on additional supporting circumstances and did not introduce a new charge, so no prejudice was shown. The option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation was treated as discretionary, not mandatory, and could not be claimed as of right after the confiscation and penalty were sustained. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 04 Feb 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72066