https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170383 The case involved an appeal by Revenue against the confiscation of camera and camera parts of foreign origin. The respondent claimed ownership and licit acquisition of the goods purchased from Chennai. The burden of proof was on Revenue to establish smuggling, but they failed to provide evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the respondent's claim, rejecting Revenue's appeal due to insufficient proof of illegal importation. en-us Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 May 2015 11:50:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170383 The case involved an appeal by Revenue against the confiscation of camera and camera parts of foreign origin. The respondent claimed ownership and licit acquisition of the goods purchased from Chennai. The burden of proof was on Revenue to establish smuggling, but they failed to provide evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the respondent's claim, rejecting Revenue's appeal due to insufficient proof of illegal importation. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170383