https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41643 In a confiscation dispute under the Defence of India Rules, seizure of gold was upheld because the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise was duly authorised, and prior police detention did not invalidate the later lawful seizure. A Government notification was treated as sufficient written authorisation for seizure under the Rule. The confiscation and penalty orders were also sustained because they were based on material independent of any alleged confession, including the Collector's own examination of the seized articles. The Collector's personal inspection was held permissible and did not amount to a jurisdictional impropriety. en-us Wed, 20 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41643 In a confiscation dispute under the Defence of India Rules, seizure of gold was upheld because the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise was duly authorised, and prior police detention did not invalidate the later lawful seizure. A Government notification was treated as sufficient written authorisation for seizure under the Rule. The confiscation and penalty orders were also sustained because they were based on material independent of any alleged confession, including the Collector's own examination of the seized articles. The Collector's personal inspection was held permissible and did not amount to a jurisdictional impropriety. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41643