https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74008 Where seized gold ornaments were claimed to belong to third parties, the Tribunal held that the person from whose possession the goods were taken had the burden to displace the statutory presumption of possession and ownership. On the facts, that burden was not discharged, so separate notice to alleged customers was not required and confiscation was sustained. Affidavit evidence was treated as non-conclusive and, given the belated filing, inconsistency with the seizure statement, and lack of contemporaneous support, the authorities were not bound to summon the deponents before rejecting the defence. The reference applications failed because the issues were factual and no referable question of law arose. en-us Tue, 16 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74008 Where seized gold ornaments were claimed to belong to third parties, the Tribunal held that the person from whose possession the goods were taken had the burden to displace the statutory presumption of possession and ownership. On the facts, that burden was not discharged, so separate notice to alleged customers was not required and confiscation was sustained. Affidavit evidence was treated as non-conclusive and, given the belated filing, inconsistency with the seizure statement, and lack of contemporaneous support, the authorities were not bound to summon the deponents before rejecting the defence. The reference applications failed because the issues were factual and no referable question of law arose. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74008