1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal upholds gold confiscation but returns Indian currency due to lack of evidence.</h1> The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of 25 gold bars with foreign markings and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 on the present appellant for their ... Penalty - Confiscation of Indian currency Issues:1. Seizure and confiscation of gold bars with foreign markings and Indian currency.2. Imposition of penalty on the appellants.3. Retraction of statements and nexus between Indian currency and smuggled gold.4. Confiscability of Indian currency.Analysis:1. The case involved the seizure of 25 gold bars with foreign markings and Indian currency from the appellants. The original authority confiscated the gold bars and currency, linking the currency to the sales proceeds of the smuggled gold bars. A penalty was imposed on the present appellants and others involved.2. The appellants did not press any claim for the seized gold bars. The Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed on the present appellant, citing corroborative evidence from statements of individuals involved in the seizure. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the penalty imposition, considering the established link with dealing in smuggled gold.3. The appellants argued against the nexus between the Indian currency and the smuggled gold, citing retracted statements and lack of evidence. The Tribunal noted the absence of contraband in the appellants' business premises and discrepancies in the amount seized compared to the value of the confiscated gold. Following the tests laid down in previous cases, the Tribunal gave the benefit of doubt to the appellants regarding the confiscated Indian currency.4. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal partially, upholding the confiscation of gold bars and penalty imposition while ordering the return of the confiscated Indian currency to the appellants. The decision was based on detailed analysis of the evidence, retracted statements, and legal precedents regarding the nexus between seized currency and smuggled goods.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
