https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43248 Seizure and confiscation under the Customs Act operate separately, so failure to serve notice within the Section 110(2) period did not by itself justify refund of the security furnished for release of goods already handed over on bond. The court held that the lapse in seizure notice affected only the seizure stage and did not prevent confiscation or penalty proceedings under Section 124 or the penal provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioners therefore were not entitled to the refund or other relief sought on that basis, though the pending proceedings were directed to be concluded expeditiously. en-us Wed, 20 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:15:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43248 Seizure and confiscation under the Customs Act operate separately, so failure to serve notice within the Section 110(2) period did not by itself justify refund of the security furnished for release of goods already handed over on bond. The court held that the lapse in seizure notice affected only the seizure stage and did not prevent confiscation or penalty proceedings under Section 124 or the penal provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioners therefore were not entitled to the refund or other relief sought on that basis, though the pending proceedings were directed to be concluded expeditiously. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 20 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43248