https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755343 CESTAT Allahabad set aside confiscation of gold bars and penalty u/s 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. Revenue's case relied on appellant's statement about smuggling from Bangladesh and foreign markings erasure, but this constituted inadmissible hearsay evidence lacking corroborative substantive proof. Revenue failed to establish actual smuggling or produce key witness testimony. Appellant proved ownership through valid invoices, shifting burden to Revenue to disprove legitimacy, which they failed to discharge. Court found Revenue's case based on presumptions rather than substantive evidence, making confiscation unsustainable. en-us Tue, 09 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Jul 2024 14:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755343 CESTAT Allahabad set aside confiscation of gold bars and penalty u/s 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. Revenue's case relied on appellant's statement about smuggling from Bangladesh and foreign markings erasure, but this constituted inadmissible hearsay evidence lacking corroborative substantive proof. Revenue failed to establish actual smuggling or produce key witness testimony. Appellant proved ownership through valid invoices, shifting burden to Revenue to disprove legitimacy, which they failed to discharge. Court found Revenue's case based on presumptions rather than substantive evidence, making confiscation unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 09 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755343