https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41396 Title to seized watches had to be proved through reliable contemporaneous evidence, and the plaintiff failed because partner and clerk statements disclaimed any connection, while bills and account entries did not match the seized consignment. The claim for declaration, possession, or value therefore failed. Limitation also barred the suit: time spent in earlier excise and writ proceedings was not excluded, as the action was treated as one for recovery of specific movable property based on title and the statutory conditions for exclusion were not met. The dismissal of the suit was accordingly affirmed with costs. en-us Thu, 11 Nov 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:17:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41396 Title to seized watches had to be proved through reliable contemporaneous evidence, and the plaintiff failed because partner and clerk statements disclaimed any connection, while bills and account entries did not match the seized consignment. The claim for declaration, possession, or value therefore failed. Limitation also barred the suit: time spent in earlier excise and writ proceedings was not excluded, as the action was treated as one for recovery of specific movable property based on title and the statutory conditions for exclusion were not met. The dismissal of the suit was accordingly affirmed with costs. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Nov 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41396