https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47111 Jurisdiction to adjudicate confiscation and impose penalty under the Gold (Control) Act depended on valid Central Government authorisation under Section 78(b); the Additional Collector could act only within the limits and period set by notification, and the later adjudication was therefore without jurisdiction. The court upheld that invalidity. The consequential direction to return the seized gold was unsustainable because no such relief had been sought and the respondents had denied ownership and possession of the gold. The proper course, if permissible, would have been fresh proceedings rather than unconditional release. That direction was set aside. en-us Tue, 22 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:43:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47111 Jurisdiction to adjudicate confiscation and impose penalty under the Gold (Control) Act depended on valid Central Government authorisation under Section 78(b); the Additional Collector could act only within the limits and period set by notification, and the later adjudication was therefore without jurisdiction. The court upheld that invalidity. The consequential direction to return the seized gold was unsustainable because no such relief had been sought and the respondents had denied ownership and possession of the gold. The proper course, if permissible, would have been fresh proceedings rather than unconditional release. That direction was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47111