https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30517 The Tribunal upheld the original order of confiscation and penalty, emphasizing the need for concrete proof in cases involving non-notified goods. Despite the appellant's arguments, the Tribunal found the appeal meritless due to the lack of tangible evidence supporting the appellant's ownership claim. The burden of proving legitimate ownership rested on the appellant, which remained unfulfilled. The judgment highlights the importance of substantiating ownership claims, especially for non-notified goods subject to confiscation, leading to the rejection of the appeal and the upholding of the confiscation order. en-us Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30517 The Tribunal upheld the original order of confiscation and penalty, emphasizing the need for concrete proof in cases involving non-notified goods. Despite the appellant's arguments, the Tribunal found the appeal meritless due to the lack of tangible evidence supporting the appellant's ownership claim. The burden of proving legitimate ownership rested on the appellant, which remained unfulfilled. The judgment highlights the importance of substantiating ownership claims, especially for non-notified goods subject to confiscation, leading to the rejection of the appeal and the upholding of the confiscation order. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30517