<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Confiscation of Zinc Ash and Truck Set Aside Due to Lack of Evidence Under Customs Act Section 123</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90625</link>
    <description>The CESTAT set aside the order of confiscation of 18,880 kgs of Zinc Ash and the truck bearing Registration No. UP-78DN/3179, along with the associated redemption fines, under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence establishing that the goods were smuggled from Nepal, noting that the Zinc Ash was accompanied by valid GST invoices and e-way bills, which were not forged. The appellants provided credible purchase receipts and ledger entries demonstrating local procurement and sale. The goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, placing the onus on the Revenue to prove smuggling, which was unmet. Consequently, no violation warranting penalties under Section 112(a)/(b) was established, leading to the setting aside of penalties imposed on the appellants. The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:22:44 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:22:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=836989" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Confiscation of Zinc Ash and Truck Set Aside Due to Lack of Evidence Under Customs Act Section 123</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90625</link>
      <description>The CESTAT set aside the order of confiscation of 18,880 kgs of Zinc Ash and the truck bearing Registration No. UP-78DN/3179, along with the associated redemption fines, under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence establishing that the goods were smuggled from Nepal, noting that the Zinc Ash was accompanied by valid GST invoices and e-way bills, which were not forged. The appellants provided credible purchase receipts and ledger entries demonstrating local procurement and sale. The goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, placing the onus on the Revenue to prove smuggling, which was unmet. Consequently, no violation warranting penalties under Section 112(a)/(b) was established, leading to the setting aside of penalties imposed on the appellants. The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:22:44 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90625</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>