https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200157 The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the Single Judge's decision that the seizure and retention of gold by the Central Excise Department were illegal and beyond the jurisdiction conferred by Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act. The Department lacked a reasonable belief for the seizure, as the stock was accounted for with corresponding vouchers. The Court found the seizure of substituted gold ornaments unwarranted, emphasizing the need for compliance with the Act's provisions. en-us Thu, 09 Dec 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:12:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200157 The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the Single Judge's decision that the seizure and retention of gold by the Central Excise Department were illegal and beyond the jurisdiction conferred by Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act. The Department lacked a reasonable belief for the seizure, as the stock was accounted for with corresponding vouchers. The Court found the seizure of substituted gold ornaments unwarranted, emphasizing the need for compliance with the Act's provisions. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Dec 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200157