https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74281 A person who neither established ownership before the adjudicating authority nor participated in confiscation proceedings cannot be treated as an aggrieved person with locus standi to appeal merely because he claimed ownership during investigation. The confiscation framework required notice to the owner, but ownership had to be determined on the basis of investigation and evidence, not on a bare claim raised at an earlier stage. The reasoning also drew support from the corresponding customs confiscation principle that a mere claimant during investigation is not automatically entitled to separate notice as of right. The appeal was therefore treated as not maintainable, and the confiscation order remained undisturbed. en-us Mon, 31 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74281 A person who neither established ownership before the adjudicating authority nor participated in confiscation proceedings cannot be treated as an aggrieved person with locus standi to appeal merely because he claimed ownership during investigation. The confiscation framework required notice to the owner, but ownership had to be determined on the basis of investigation and evidence, not on a bare claim raised at an earlier stage. The reasoning also drew support from the corresponding customs confiscation principle that a mere claimant during investigation is not automatically entitled to separate notice as of right. The appeal was therefore treated as not maintainable, and the confiscation order remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 31 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74281