https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343585 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order of confiscation with redemption fine and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to prove that the seized goods were smuggled, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence and the unsustainable nature of the Show Cause Notice. The judgment underscored the Revenue's obligation to bear the burden of proof in cases involving non-notified goods and the requirement for concrete evidence to support allegations of smuggling. en-us Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Feb 2018 11:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343585 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order of confiscation with redemption fine and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to prove that the seized goods were smuggled, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence and the unsustainable nature of the Show Cause Notice. The judgment underscored the Revenue's obligation to bear the burden of proof in cases involving non-notified goods and the requirement for concrete evidence to support allegations of smuggling. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343585