https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167156 Confiscation of seized gold under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 could not be sustained without notice and a reasonable hearing to persons asserting ownership, because Section 79 required the adjudicating authority to examine title and whether the owner had knowledge of or connived at the contravention before rejecting such claims. The summary rejection of third-party ownership claims without issuing show cause notices therefore vitiated the confiscation process. On limitation, a reference application filed within sixty days from service of the Tribunal's order, and on the first working day after closed holidays, was treated as within time and not barred under Section 82B. en-us Tue, 24 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Dec 2014 15:16:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167156 Confiscation of seized gold under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 could not be sustained without notice and a reasonable hearing to persons asserting ownership, because Section 79 required the adjudicating authority to examine title and whether the owner had knowledge of or connived at the contravention before rejecting such claims. The summary rejection of third-party ownership claims without issuing show cause notices therefore vitiated the confiscation process. On limitation, a reference application filed within sixty days from service of the Tribunal's order, and on the first working day after closed holidays, was treated as within time and not barred under Section 82B. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167156