https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73271 Excess gold ornaments found in the appellants' premises were treated as liable to confiscation because they were not duly entered in statutory records and the alleged customer ownership was not promptly or convincingly proved. Belated affidavits and later goldsmith register copies were rejected as insufficient to displace the contemporaneous seizure statement and the statutory presumption arising from possession. No separate notice to the alleged customers was required where third-party ownership was not established. Penalty was properly imposed under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, since the unaccounted ornaments were already liable to confiscation, and Section 75 operated only residually. en-us Mon, 31 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73271 Excess gold ornaments found in the appellants' premises were treated as liable to confiscation because they were not duly entered in statutory records and the alleged customer ownership was not promptly or convincingly proved. Belated affidavits and later goldsmith register copies were rejected as insufficient to displace the contemporaneous seizure statement and the statutory presumption arising from possession. No separate notice to the alleged customers was required where third-party ownership was not established. Penalty was properly imposed under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, since the unaccounted ornaments were already liable to confiscation, and Section 75 operated only residually. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 31 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73271