1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
CESTAT analyzed a case involving seizure of 3499.750gm of gold allegedly smuggled from Myanmar. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish smuggling, noting lack of reasonable belief under Section 110 and 123 of Customs Act, 1962. The department failed to provide cogent proof of foreign origin or smuggling. Procedural irregularities, including non-compliance with Section 138B and principles of natural justice, further weakened the case. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the seized goods were not liable for confiscation and the involved parties were not subject to penalties.