https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73282 A special statute permitting search by an empowered officer did not require a search warrant, and minor panchnama defects caused no prejudice, so the search and seizure challenge failed. The adjudication was not vitiated because a partner appeared and made submissions, defeating the claim of denial of personal hearing. Proven shortage of gold ornaments removed without the required entry and voucher attracted liability under Section 74 rather than the residuary provision, and the Act's definition of dealer treated a partnership firm as liable to penalty. The quantum of penalty was upheld because no mitigating circumstance justified reduction. en-us Wed, 16 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73282 A special statute permitting search by an empowered officer did not require a search warrant, and minor panchnama defects caused no prejudice, so the search and seizure challenge failed. The adjudication was not vitiated because a partner appeared and made submissions, defeating the claim of denial of personal hearing. Proven shortage of gold ornaments removed without the required entry and voucher attracted liability under Section 74 rather than the residuary provision, and the Act's definition of dealer treated a partnership firm as liable to penalty. The quantum of penalty was upheld because no mitigating circumstance justified reduction. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73282