<?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>2025 (8) TMI 101 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775914</link>
    <description>The CESTAT Kolkata held that the areca nuts seized were neither prohibited nor notified goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue failed to prove that the goods were smuggled into the country by the appellants. Consequently, the onus to establish smuggling was not discharged, and no penalty could be imposed. The penalties previously levied on the appellants were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2025 07:24:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=840399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 101 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775914</link>
      <description>The CESTAT Kolkata held that the areca nuts seized were neither prohibited nor notified goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue failed to prove that the goods were smuggled into the country by the appellants. Consequently, the onus to establish smuggling was not discharged, and no penalty could be imposed. The penalties previously levied on the appellants were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775914</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>