https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86206 CESTAT ruled in favor of appellant, invalidating customs seizure and penalties due to procedural delays and insufficient evidence of smuggling. Commissioner (Appeals) took two years to conduct hearing and issue Order-in-Appeal, violating six-month timeframe under Section 128A(4A) of Customs Act 1962, without justification. Revenue failed to prove foreign origin of seized gold bars and ornaments (86.230 grams), while appellant consistently claimed legitimate purchase with supporting documentation from local residents. Tribunal emphasized Revenue's failure to discharge burden of proof regarding smuggled nature of goods and noted absence of chemical examination. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside due to unexplained procedural delays and substantive deficiencies in Revenue's case. en-us Tue, 04 Mar 2025 07:12:49 +0530 Tue, 04 Mar 2025 07:12:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86206 CESTAT ruled in favor of appellant, invalidating customs seizure and penalties due to procedural delays and insufficient evidence of smuggling. Commissioner (Appeals) took two years to conduct hearing and issue Order-in-Appeal, violating six-month timeframe under Section 128A(4A) of Customs Act 1962, without justification. Revenue failed to prove foreign origin of seized gold bars and ornaments (86.230 grams), while appellant consistently claimed legitimate purchase with supporting documentation from local residents. Tribunal emphasized Revenue's failure to discharge burden of proof regarding smuggled nature of goods and noted absence of chemical examination. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside due to unexplained procedural delays and substantive deficiencies in Revenue's case. Highlights Customs Tue, 04 Mar 2025 07:12:49 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86206