https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80144 In confiscation proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act, possession of unaccounted gold and ornaments attracted the statutory presumption of ownership, and the appellant failed to rebut it with contemporaneous records, vouchers, or proof that the goods belonged to third parties. The records and panchnama showed a stock discrepancy, the appellant was asked to explain the excess and was served notice, and the alleged absence of a separate hearing for unidentified owners did not invalidate the action because ownership in others was not established. The confiscation was therefore upheld, and no further interference with the redemption fine was warranted. en-us Tue, 23 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:50:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80144 In confiscation proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act, possession of unaccounted gold and ornaments attracted the statutory presumption of ownership, and the appellant failed to rebut it with contemporaneous records, vouchers, or proof that the goods belonged to third parties. The records and panchnama showed a stock discrepancy, the appellant was asked to explain the excess and was served notice, and the alleged absence of a separate hearing for unidentified owners did not invalidate the action because ownership in others was not established. The confiscation was therefore upheld, and no further interference with the redemption fine was warranted. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 23 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80144