Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of CESTAT held that seized areca (betel) nuts were neither prohibited nor notified under the Customs Act, therefore the Revenue bore the evidentiary burden to prove smuggling. The Tribunal found the Revenue failed to discharge that onus; statements relied upon were insufficient to establish illegal importation from Myanmar and Indonesia or contraband status. Consequentially, the monetary penalties levied against the appellants for alleged illegal procurement and importation were found unsustainable and were set aside. The impugned penalty orders are quashed and the appeal is allowed to the extent of striking down the penalties; no further sanction may be imposed on the appellants based on the present record.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
