https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457781 Once adjudication was completed and the penalty was recovered from the seized money, the seizure merged into the adjudication order and the remaining balance could no longer be retained. The authority was required to deal with that balance strictly in accordance with the adjudication order, and administrative inconvenience, pendency of appeal, or absence of the seizing officer did not justify withholding payment. The balance amount of Rs. 70,000 was therefore required to be refunded, and continued retention of the seized surplus was unlawful. en-us Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Sep 2024 13:22:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457781 Once adjudication was completed and the penalty was recovered from the seized money, the seizure merged into the adjudication order and the remaining balance could no longer be retained. The authority was required to deal with that balance strictly in accordance with the adjudication order, and administrative inconvenience, pendency of appeal, or absence of the seizing officer did not justify withholding payment. The balance amount of Rs. 70,000 was therefore required to be refunded, and continued retention of the seized surplus was unlawful. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457781