https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750862 CESTAT Kolkata ruled that the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act was discharged by the ownership claimant who produced invoices, transaction details, and bank records for gold purchase from a legitimate supplier. Revenue failed to disprove the claimant's evidence or prove alternative cash procurement theory. The tribunal held that only the ownership claimant needed to discharge the burden, not co-appellants, and that seized gold was not liable for confiscation due to Revenue's failure to establish smuggling with proper evidence. en-us Mon, 19 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Apr 2024 08:08:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750862 CESTAT Kolkata ruled that the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act was discharged by the ownership claimant who produced invoices, transaction details, and bank records for gold purchase from a legitimate supplier. Revenue failed to disprove the claimant's evidence or prove alternative cash procurement theory. The tribunal held that only the ownership claimant needed to discharge the burden, not co-appellants, and that seized gold was not liable for confiscation due to Revenue's failure to establish smuggling with proper evidence. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 19 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750862