https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42480 In confiscation proceedings, the department must first discharge the burden of proving that the seized articles answer the description attributed to them. Visual inspection alone, without independent evidence, was held insufficient to establish that the hairpins were primary gold rather than ornaments. The authority's failure to consider the petitioners' request to lead evidence further undermined the order. On that basis, the confiscation could not be sustained, and the consequential penalty and show cause notice for cancellation of licence were also liable to be quashed. en-us Mon, 16 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:03:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42480 In confiscation proceedings, the department must first discharge the burden of proving that the seized articles answer the description attributed to them. Visual inspection alone, without independent evidence, was held insufficient to establish that the hairpins were primary gold rather than ornaments. The authority's failure to consider the petitioners' request to lead evidence further undermined the order. On that basis, the confiscation could not be sustained, and the consequential penalty and show cause notice for cancellation of licence were also liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 16 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42480