https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94550 The court set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant for owning seized silver due to insufficient evidence, inconsistencies in statements, lack of corroboration, geographical discrepancies, and failure to establish smuggling. The judge ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the necessity for substantial evidence and the burden of proof on the department to support penalties under the Act. en-us Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94550 The court set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant for owning seized silver due to insufficient evidence, inconsistencies in statements, lack of corroboration, geographical discrepancies, and failure to establish smuggling. The judge ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the necessity for substantial evidence and the burden of proof on the department to support penalties under the Act. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94550