https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269568 In a fresh adjudication under Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, limitation ran from the date of the order directing fresh adjudication, and the later show-cause notice was barred because it was issued beyond six months without extension. The finding that the seized articles were gold ornaments, based on inspection and record evidence, was treated as a factual determination not shown to be perverse or unsupported, so it was not disturbed. The Tribunal was also justified in ignoring the purity report because purity had not been alleged in the notice, and the assessee had not been given a proper opportunity to ? Reply to it. The reference therefore failed and the Tribunal's order remained undisturbed. en-us Tue, 01 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 May 2016 10:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269568 In a fresh adjudication under Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, limitation ran from the date of the order directing fresh adjudication, and the later show-cause notice was barred because it was issued beyond six months without extension. The finding that the seized articles were gold ornaments, based on inspection and record evidence, was treated as a factual determination not shown to be perverse or unsupported, so it was not disturbed. The Tribunal was also justified in ignoring the purity report because purity had not been alleged in the notice, and the assessee had not been given a proper opportunity to ? Reply to it. The reference therefore failed and the Tribunal's order remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269568