https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794586 Penalty for keeping confiscated goods in the appellants' premises was upheld in principle because they had allowed storage without verifying the goods' nature or ownership. However, the Tribunal found the main inculpatory statement uncorroborated, as its maker had died and no independent material supported the Revenue's case. It also noted that the appellants' explanation that the goods were kept at another person's request was not effectively disproved by deeper investigation. On that basis, interference was justified to the extent of reducing the penalty substantially while maintaining liability. en-us Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jul 2026 09:08:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794586 Penalty for keeping confiscated goods in the appellants' premises was upheld in principle because they had allowed storage without verifying the goods' nature or ownership. However, the Tribunal found the main inculpatory statement uncorroborated, as its maker had died and no independent material supported the Revenue's case. It also noted that the appellants' explanation that the goods were kept at another person's request was not effectively disproved by deeper investigation. On that basis, interference was justified to the extent of reducing the penalty substantially while maintaining liability. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794586