https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753795 CESTAT Hyderabad dismissed the appeal challenging penalty under sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act. The appellant's association with co-accused persons regarding seized gold jewellery and attempt to claim ownership while covering up the seizure made him liable for penalty for abetment. The court upheld jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner, found no limitation breach due to COVID-19 relaxation as show cause notice was issued within extended timeline, rejected non-application of mind argument, and confirmed burden of proof shifted under section 123 after intelligence-based seizure from concealed compartment with inadequate documentation. en-us Fri, 07 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753795 CESTAT Hyderabad dismissed the appeal challenging penalty under sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act. The appellant's association with co-accused persons regarding seized gold jewellery and attempt to claim ownership while covering up the seizure made him liable for penalty for abetment. The court upheld jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner, found no limitation breach due to COVID-19 relaxation as show cause notice was issued within extended timeline, rejected non-application of mind argument, and confirmed burden of proof shifted under section 123 after intelligence-based seizure from concealed compartment with inadequate documentation. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 07 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753795