Back
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member, K. Anpazhakan, Technical Member
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) – Appellant
Versus
Abhishek Mundhra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual procedural history regarding the seizure and initial adjudication. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding burden of proof and reasonable belief. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. establishing reasonable belief under section 110(1) requires objective material proofs. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. burden of proof under section 123 applies only after establishing foreign origin. (Para 9) |
| 5. domestic source documentation rebuts allegations of illicit smuggling. (Para 10) |
| 6. confiscation under section 111(b) mandates clear evidence of smuggled status. (Para 11) |
| 7. penalties under section 112 require established mala fide intention. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
FINAL ORDER NO. 75650 / 2026
ORDER: [PER SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN]
The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 16.01.2026, wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order-in-Original dated 27.08.2025.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal are summarized as under:
(i) Pursuant to an intelligence to the effect that a substantial quantity of foreign origin gold are smuggled into India from Bangladesh and subsequently transported under the guise of ‘gold jewellery’ through t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
