https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399261 The court upheld the extension of the period for issuing a notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, noting that a hearing before the extension was not required under the amended provision. The retention of seized goods for confiscation proceedings was deemed legal, and the reasons recorded for the extension were found to be adequate. The court clarified that the extension order should be made within the initial period, but service can be within the extended period. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected, affirming the judgment of the Single Judge without identifying any illegality or procedural flaw. en-us Thu, 01 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Feb 2021 14:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399261 The court upheld the extension of the period for issuing a notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, noting that a hearing before the extension was not required under the amended provision. The retention of seized goods for confiscation proceedings was deemed legal, and the reasons recorded for the extension were found to be adequate. The court clarified that the extension order should be made within the initial period, but service can be within the extended period. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected, affirming the judgment of the Single Judge without identifying any illegality or procedural flaw. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 01 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399261