CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalties imposed under ss. 112(b)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act. It held that statements recorded under s. 108 could not be treated as relevant evidence since the mandatory procedure under s. 138B, including examination before the adjudicating authority and opportunity for cross-examination, was not followed. Consequently, the finding that the appellant was the owner of the seized 12 gold bars was unsustainable, section 123 could not be invoked, and the gold bars were not liable to confiscation under s. 111. The Tribunal further held that the confiscation of seized currency and gold jewellery/ornaments was based on presumptions and was unsustainable, and criticisms regarding absence of e-way bills were legally untenable.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalties imposed under ss. 112(b)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act. It held that statements recorded under s. 108 could not be treated as relevant evidence since the mandatory procedure under s. 138B, including examination before the adjudicating authority and opportunity for cross-examination, was not followed. Consequently, the finding that the appellant was the owner of the seized 12 gold bars was unsustainable, section 123 could not be invoked, and the gold bars were not liable to confiscation under s. 111. The Tribunal further held that the confiscation of seized currency and gold jewellery/ornaments was based on presumptions and was unsustainable, and criticisms regarding absence of e-way bills were legally untenable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
