https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768205 CESTAT Allahabad set aside the confiscation of gold and penalty imposed on appellant in a town seizure case. The tribunal held that Revenue's case relied primarily on a statement recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, which was inadmissible due to non-compliance with mandatory Section 138B procedures. The adjudicating authority incorrectly rejected appellant's objection regarding procedural non-compliance, stating cross-examination wasn't sought. CESTAT ruled that Section 138B compliance was mandatory regardless of whether cross-examination was requested. In town seizure cases, Revenue bears initial burden to prove foreign origin and smuggling. Apart from the inadmissible statement, no evidence supported smuggling allegations, while appellant produced invoices proving legal procurement. Penalty under Section 112(b) was also set aside as necessary material to prove smuggling was absent. Appeal allowed. en-us Wed, 02 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Apr 2025 07:50:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768205 CESTAT Allahabad set aside the confiscation of gold and penalty imposed on appellant in a town seizure case. The tribunal held that Revenue's case relied primarily on a statement recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, which was inadmissible due to non-compliance with mandatory Section 138B procedures. The adjudicating authority incorrectly rejected appellant's objection regarding procedural non-compliance, stating cross-examination wasn't sought. CESTAT ruled that Section 138B compliance was mandatory regardless of whether cross-examination was requested. In town seizure cases, Revenue bears initial burden to prove foreign origin and smuggling. Apart from the inadmissible statement, no evidence supported smuggling allegations, while appellant produced invoices proving legal procurement. Penalty under Section 112(b) was also set aside as necessary material to prove smuggling was absent. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 02 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768205