https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255926 Where gold is seized, the person concerned may rely on purchase bills, stock records and other materials to show lawful possession, and confiscation cannot rest on suspicion alone. Although the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 may apply, the Revenue must still rebut the explanation with cogent evidence of illegal import or smuggling; if it fails to do so, an order unsupported by evidence is vulnerable to interference under Article 226. The Calcutta HC therefore treated the confiscation and penalty as unsustainable and set aside the Tribunal's order. en-us Tue, 19 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Jan 2015 08:42:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255926 Where gold is seized, the person concerned may rely on purchase bills, stock records and other materials to show lawful possession, and confiscation cannot rest on suspicion alone. Although the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 may apply, the Revenue must still rebut the explanation with cogent evidence of illegal import or smuggling; if it fails to do so, an order unsupported by evidence is vulnerable to interference under Article 226. The Calcutta HC therefore treated the confiscation and penalty as unsustainable and set aside the Tribunal's order. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 19 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255926