https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377810 Where seized gold is retained beyond the initial six-month period, the statutory notice for extension must be issued before that period expires and to the person from whose possession the goods were seized. On the facts discussed, the only contemporaneous record, the mahazar, was treated as unreliable because of date discrepancies, and the extension notice was issued after expiry of six months without any showing that delay in service was attributable to the appellant. The confiscation was therefore set aside for breach of the limitation requirement under section 110(2), while the penalty under section 112(a) remained undisturbed, resulting in only partial relief. en-us Fri, 29 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Feb 2020 14:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377810 Where seized gold is retained beyond the initial six-month period, the statutory notice for extension must be issued before that period expires and to the person from whose possession the goods were seized. On the facts discussed, the only contemporaneous record, the mahazar, was treated as unreliable because of date discrepancies, and the extension notice was issued after expiry of six months without any showing that delay in service was attributable to the appellant. The confiscation was therefore set aside for breach of the limitation requirement under section 110(2), while the penalty under section 112(a) remained undisturbed, resulting in only partial relief. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 29 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377810