https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794380 Gold jewellery confiscation and penalty were sent back for fresh adjudication because the bangles and rings were worn as jewellery and were not shown to have been carried in a concealed manner. Although no proper licit document was produced at the time of seizure, purchase invoices were later filed at the appellate stage. As those invoices had not been examined by the adjudicating authority, their genuineness required verification before any final adverse finding could be sustained. The appellant was therefore to be given an opportunity to produce supporting documents, and the adjudicating authority was directed to verify them afresh. en-us Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jul 2026 08:15:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794380 Gold jewellery confiscation and penalty were sent back for fresh adjudication because the bangles and rings were worn as jewellery and were not shown to have been carried in a concealed manner. Although no proper licit document was produced at the time of seizure, purchase invoices were later filed at the appellate stage. As those invoices had not been examined by the adjudicating authority, their genuineness required verification before any final adverse finding could be sustained. The appellant was therefore to be given an opportunity to produce supporting documents, and the adjudicating authority was directed to verify them afresh. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794380