Appellant proved ownership of gold bars through valid invoices, ...

Appellant Wins Appeal: Gold Bars Ownership Proven, Section 112(b) Penalty Dismissed Due to Lack of Evidence by Revenue.

July 11, 2024

Case Laws Customs AT

Appellant proved ownership of gold bars through valid invoices, discharging initial onus. Revenue failed to establish invoices unrelated to seized gold, lacking inquiry into consideration paid. Foreign origin and smuggled nature of gold not conclusively established beyond relying on Appellant's statements, which were hearsay. Lack of corroborative substantive evidence renders hearsay inadmissible. Revenue's case based on presumptions and assumptions instead of substantive evidence. Since gold not liable for confiscation, penalty u/s 112(b) on Appellant set aside. Appeal allowed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Appellant proved ownership of gold bars through valid invoices, ...

Appellant Wins Appeal: Gold Bars Ownership Proven, Section 112(b) Penalty Dismissed Due to Lack of Evidence by Revenue.

July 11, 2024

Case Laws Customs AT

You may also like:

Smuggling - illegal importation of the seized gold - Confiscation of the gold and Indian currency - The Tribunal found no evidence linking the seized Indian currency to...

Undervaluation of imported goods - Patchouli Oil - The CESTAT found that the rejection of the declared value lacked legal basis and was unsupported by evidence. The...

Non-discharge of service tax - extended period invoked, service tax demanded - penalties imposed u/ss 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - appellant providing taxable...

Seizure of Gold Bars - Confiscation - Penalty u/s 112(b) - The case involves the interception of the Appellant carrying 17 pieces of gold of foreign origin in Kolkata....

The case before CESTAT New Delhi involved fraudulent registration and utilization of duty-free scrips, leading to penalties. The appellant failed to comply with...

Customs Act, 1962 - Penalty levied on appellant as co-noticee for principal violator's diversion of duty-free imported goods under DEEC scheme to local market without...

Evidences indicate appellant was aware of smuggling activities involving diversion of smuggled cigarettes concealed in transit container, providing transportation and...

Confiscation of smuggled gold bars/biscuits u/ss 111(b), 111(d), and 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants failed to establish the licit procurement of the...

Penalty imposed u/s 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment of illegal export by arranging lorries. Lack of admissible evidence showing knowledge of goods...

This case pertains to penalties imposed for alleged violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973. The respondent claimed the appellant transferred...

Penalty levied u/s 112(b) of Customs Act challenged due to lack of proper evidence. Appellant obtained PNR movement documents from steamer agent for cargo movement from...

Clandestine removal - The department relied on statements, diaries, and records, which the appellants contested, citing coercion and lack of corroboration. The Tribunal...

The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA 1973. The appellant argued lack of material and violation of natural...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - adjustment made u/s 92CA - penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the adjustment made u/s 92CA is not...

CESTAT Mumbai held that confiscation of imported goods and imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act for forged Special Import Licenses lacked clear evidence...

Quick Updates: