https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107359 Penalty for seized goods cannot be sustained without evidence linking the appellants to the goods, even if they did not reply to the show-cause notice or appear for personal hearing. The appellants had consistently denied ownership from the outset, and the statements on record, including that of a person present at the spot, supported the explanation that the bag had been left by an unknown person. In the absence of any Revenue evidence connecting the appellants with the seized fabrics, mere non-participation in the adjudication proceedings did not establish culpability or guilty mind. The penalty was therefore set aside. en-us Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:24:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107359 Penalty for seized goods cannot be sustained without evidence linking the appellants to the goods, even if they did not reply to the show-cause notice or appear for personal hearing. The appellants had consistently denied ownership from the outset, and the statements on record, including that of a person present at the spot, supported the explanation that the bag had been left by an unknown person. In the absence of any Revenue evidence connecting the appellants with the seized fabrics, mere non-participation in the adjudication proceedings did not establish culpability or guilty mind. The penalty was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107359