CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant discharged...

CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant discharged the burden of proof to show legal possession of the seized gold. The Tribunal found the appellant's contemporaneous FIR, corroborative statements, valuation report and unchallenged representation sufficient to establish ownership and bona fide purchase; the Department's delay, failure to issue a proper show-cause notice to the appellant and to adequately adjudicate his documentary evidence, together with absence of any other claimant, vitiated the confiscation. The impugned confiscation order was quashed and set aside and the appellant's claim to the recovered gold sustained, rendering the seizure/forfeiture untenable.