https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41882 Seized goods taken from a person's possession could not be retained where the mandatory notice under Section 124(a) was not issued within the time contemplated by Section 110(2). The statutory scheme required notice before confiscation, and in its absence the bar to continued retention operated in favour of the possessor. The confiscation also lacked a sustainable basis because the appellate finding showed that the alleged manufacturer had not been proved to have manufactured the goods or evaded duty. The confiscation was therefore unsustainable against the petitioner, and the seized goods were directed to be returned. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:04:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41882 Seized goods taken from a person's possession could not be retained where the mandatory notice under Section 124(a) was not issued within the time contemplated by Section 110(2). The statutory scheme required notice before confiscation, and in its absence the bar to continued retention operated in favour of the possessor. The confiscation also lacked a sustainable basis because the appellate finding showed that the alleged manufacturer had not been proved to have manufactured the goods or evaded duty. The confiscation was therefore unsustainable against the petitioner, and the seized goods were directed to be returned. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41882