https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72861 Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act required notice to be given within six months of seizure as a condition affecting the owner's right to return of seized ornaments. The Court treated "given" as actual service on the owner or on a duly authorised agent, and found that the registered notice reached the petitioner only after the six-month period. Alleged delivery to the petitioner's brother was not proved, and his role in the shop did not establish authority to receive notice. Substituted service by affixation on the office notice board could not be relied on without showing that ordinary service was impossible or impracticable. The notice was therefore invalidly served within time, and the seized ornaments had to be returned. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72861 Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act required notice to be given within six months of seizure as a condition affecting the owner's right to return of seized ornaments. The Court treated "given" as actual service on the owner or on a duly authorised agent, and found that the registered notice reached the petitioner only after the six-month period. Alleged delivery to the petitioner's brother was not proved, and his role in the shop did not establish authority to receive notice. Substituted service by affixation on the office notice board could not be relied on without showing that ordinary service was impossible or impracticable. The notice was therefore invalidly served within time, and the seized ornaments had to be returned. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72861