https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72809 The appeal was held to be within time because the department's affidavit showed that the appellate order was not received in the Collector's office and action for appeal was taken on receipt by the Additional Collector. Confiscation of the seized gold was not invalid for want of notice to alleged owners, as notice had been issued to the person from whose premises the gold was seized and ownership had not been established. Release of the gold on redemption fine was unsustainable because the claim of ownership was belated and unsupported by convincing evidence; under the Gold (Control) Act, redemption fine in lieu of confiscation is available only where ownership of the confiscated gold is proved. en-us Wed, 04 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 May 2011 12:15:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72809 The appeal was held to be within time because the department's affidavit showed that the appellate order was not received in the Collector's office and action for appeal was taken on receipt by the Additional Collector. Confiscation of the seized gold was not invalid for want of notice to alleged owners, as notice had been issued to the person from whose premises the gold was seized and ownership had not been established. Release of the gold on redemption fine was unsustainable because the claim of ownership was belated and unsupported by convincing evidence; under the Gold (Control) Act, redemption fine in lieu of confiscation is available only where ownership of the confiscated gold is proved. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72809