https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782503 CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the Department failed to discharge its burden of proving that the seized betel nuts were of foreign and smuggled origin. As betel nuts are non-notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the onus lay on Revenue, which relied only on local market opinion and the absence of documents proving indigenous origin. The Tribunal found no cogent, positive evidence of smuggling or of import. Consequently, seizure and confiscation were set aside, along with the redemption fine and penalty under Section 112. en-us Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 08:50:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782503 CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the Department failed to discharge its burden of proving that the seized betel nuts were of foreign and smuggled origin. As betel nuts are non-notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the onus lay on Revenue, which relied only on local market opinion and the absence of documents proving indigenous origin. The Tribunal found no cogent, positive evidence of smuggling or of import. Consequently, seizure and confiscation were set aside, along with the redemption fine and penalty under Section 112. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782503