https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167443 Concurrent findings that the appellant failed to declare primary gold in his possession were upheld because the denial made when questioned, followed by recovery on search, supported the adverse inference and no perversity or absence of evidence was shown. The existence of a time limit for purchasing gold bonds did not bar inspection, seizure, or confiscation where possession was contrary to the applicable rules. The provision allowing a fine in lieu of confiscation was treated as enabling, not mandatory, so failure to offer that option did not invalidate the confiscation. The confiscation and penalty therefore remained undisturbed. en-us Thu, 03 Jul 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:14:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167443 Concurrent findings that the appellant failed to declare primary gold in his possession were upheld because the denial made when questioned, followed by recovery on search, supported the adverse inference and no perversity or absence of evidence was shown. The existence of a time limit for purchasing gold bonds did not bar inspection, seizure, or confiscation where possession was contrary to the applicable rules. The provision allowing a fine in lieu of confiscation was treated as enabling, not mandatory, so failure to offer that option did not invalidate the confiscation. The confiscation and penalty therefore remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Jul 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167443