Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
HC held that under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962, the burden of proving non-smuggled status of seized goods lies with the person from whose possession the goods were seized. In this case, crude gold bars of foreign origin were confiscated. The CESTAT's order was set aside, with the penalty reduced to Rs. 1,00,000 for the respondent, who was deemed a carrier. The gold valued at Rs. 91,98,090 remains confiscated as the respondent failed to prove legitimate acquisition. The civil miscellaneous appeal was allowed, partially modifying the original penalty while upholding the confiscation order.
HC held that under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962, the burden of proving non-smuggled status of seized goods lies with the person from whose possession the goods were seized. In this case, crude gold bars of foreign origin were confiscated. The CESTAT's order was set aside, with the penalty reduced to Rs. 1,00,000 for the respondent, who was deemed a carrier. The gold valued at Rs. 91,98,090 remains confiscated as the respondent failed to prove legitimate acquisition. The civil miscellaneous appeal was allowed, partially modifying the original penalty while upholding the confiscation order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
