https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45768 In confiscation proceedings, the authority must examine a claimant's legal title to seized goods on merits and cannot reject the claim merely because the goods were not seized from the claimant's custody. The Patna HC noted that the Collector misdirected himself by treating lack of physical seizure from the petitioner as decisive, when the real issue was whether she could prove ownership and whether the ornaments were liable to confiscation as smuggled goods. The impugned order was therefore vitiated by an error of jurisdiction and was set aside, with the matter remanded for rehearing after the petitioner was given an opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence. en-us Wed, 29 Jun 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:40:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45768 In confiscation proceedings, the authority must examine a claimant's legal title to seized goods on merits and cannot reject the claim merely because the goods were not seized from the claimant's custody. The Patna HC noted that the Collector misdirected himself by treating lack of physical seizure from the petitioner as decisive, when the real issue was whether she could prove ownership and whether the ornaments were liable to confiscation as smuggled goods. The impugned order was therefore vitiated by an error of jurisdiction and was set aside, with the matter remanded for rehearing after the petitioner was given an opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Jun 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45768