Appellant Wins Appeal: Gold Bars Ownership Proven, Section 112(b) Penalty Dismissed Due to Lack of Evidence by Revenue.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appellant proved ownership of gold bars through valid invoices, discharging initial onus. Revenue failed to establish invoices unrelated to seized gold, lacking inquiry into consideration paid. Foreign origin and smuggled nature of gold not conclusively established beyond relying on Appellant's statements, which were hearsay. Lack of corroborative substantive evidence renders hearsay inadmissible. Revenue's case based on presumptions and assumptions instead of substantive evidence. Since gold not liable for confiscation, penalty u/s 112(b) on Appellant set aside. Appeal allowed.....