Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Tools

We've upgraded AI Tools on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Tools

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

Confiscation of Zinc Ash and Truck Set Aside Due to Lack of Evidence Under Customs Act Section 123

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The CESTAT set aside the order of confiscation of 18,880 kgs of Zinc Ash and the truck bearing Registration No. UP-78DN/3179, along with the associated redemption fines, under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence establishing that the goods were smuggled from Nepal, noting that the Zinc Ash was accompanied by valid GST invoices and e-way bills, which were not forged. The appellants provided credible purchase receipts and ledger entries demonstrating local procurement and sale. The goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, placing the onus on the Revenue to prove smuggling, which was unmet. Consequently, no violation warranting penalties under Section 112(a)/(b) was established, leading to the setting aside of penalties imposed on the appellants. The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of.....