https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420547 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, ruling in favor of the appellants. The Department failed to meet the burden of proof required under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, to establish that the gold was smuggled. The Tribunal found the evidence presented by the appellants, including purchase bills and stock registers, to be credible. Additionally, the retracted statement and insufficient corroborative evidence provided by the Department were deemed insufficient grounds for confiscation and penalties. As a result, the confiscated gold was ordered to be returned to the claimant, and penalties on other appellants were set aside. en-us Mon, 28 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Apr 2022 09:08:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420547 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, ruling in favor of the appellants. The Department failed to meet the burden of proof required under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, to establish that the gold was smuggled. The Tribunal found the evidence presented by the appellants, including purchase bills and stock registers, to be credible. Additionally, the retracted statement and insufficient corroborative evidence provided by the Department were deemed insufficient grounds for confiscation and penalties. As a result, the confiscated gold was ordered to be returned to the claimant, and penalties on other appellants were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 28 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420547