Contested by us
Daleep Kumar Verma vs Commissioner of Customs, Shillong
Court: Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata.
Category: Customs Act, 1962
The CESTAT, Kolkata in Daleep Kumar Verma & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Shillong set aside the confiscation of gold bangles and a silver bar, along with penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. The case arose from seizure of 90 gold bangles and a silver bar on suspicion of being smuggled goods of foreign origin.
The Tribunal held that mere suspicion or uncorroborated statements cannot establish smuggling. The seized gold jewellery did not bear any foreign markings, and documentary evidence showed that the gold was procured from domestic sources and sent for job work. The ownership of goods was also admitted by a co-noticee, supported by invoices and records.
It was further held that the burden of proof under Section 123 does not automatically shift to the assessee in absence of reasonable belief backed by evidence. Reliance solely on retracted statements of co-accused and an unsubstantiated expert opinion was found insufficient.
Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that confiscation and penalties were unsustainable in law, emphasizing that tangible evidence is essential to prove smuggled nature of goods.
J. Suresh vs Commissioner of Customs, Vijayawada
Court: Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad.
Category: Customs Act, 1962.
Allegation of the Customs Department was that the gold possessed by the appellant was smuggled gold. The Tribunal had hold that if the gold seized by the Department is not standard in weight and also does not having foreign marking, and further if it is town seizure, the same cannot be termed as smuggle gold.
The Order has been further upheld by the Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh at Vijayawada
https://vermalegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/J-SURESH-Vs-COMMISSIONER-OF-CUSTOMS-VUJAYWADA.pdf
Pankaj Mittal vs Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Kolkata
Court: Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata.
Category: Customs Act, 1962.
In Pankaj Mittal v. Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Kolkata), the Tribunal held that excess foreign and Indian currency carried beyond permissible limits under FEMA regulations is liable for confiscation under Sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act, irrespective of the passenger’s knowledge. However, the Tribunal found absolute confiscation disproportionate in the facts, as the appellant was an individual traveler with no mala fide intent or commercial activity. Exercising judicial discretion, it allowed redemption of the seized currency on payment of a fine of ₹10,000 and reduced the penalty to ₹5,000, thereby partly allowing the appeal.
Vijay vs Union of India
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal
Category: Service Law
This judgment deals with issues relating to withheld of Gratuity and not released despite vacation of quarter occupied by him, and submitting NOC. The Tribunal examined the legality of administrative action and provided relief in accordance with established service jurisprudence.
https://vermalegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/order-vijay-OA-CAT.pdf
Narinder Verma vs Lalit Bindal & others
Court: National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Category: Consumer’s Protection Law
This judgment deals with issues relating to the decision of the State Consumer Commission who granted the relief to the Opposite Party in the appeal filed by the Appellant before it. The National Consumer Commission has examined the legality of decision of the State Commission and provided relief in accordance with established consumer law jurisprudence.
https://vermalegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/ORDER-NCDRC-14-11-2025.pdf
Cortiza Consumer Case
Authority: District Consumer Commission -II, Chandigarh
Category: Consumer Law
Cortiza Holidays (P) Ltd. had taken money from the consumer to provide 4 and 5 properties across the world for 4 years. But at the time of first booking it failed to do so. The Commission has allowed the complaint to refund Rs. 125000.00 along with interest @ 6% and compensation also.
https://vermalegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/order-cortiza.pdf
Santosh Kumar Verma vs Union of India
Authority: Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court
Category: Companies Act
Registrar of Companies had refused to grant the word “Associates” in the name of an LLP firm stating the NOC is required from profession controlling authority. The High Court has quashed the objection after dictating detailed order.
https://vermalegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/CWP_12179_2021_03_02_2023_FINAL_ORDER-1.pdf
Punjab National Bank vs Mahindro Devi
Authority: Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh
Category: Bank Recovery Laws.
Mahindro Devi and her relatives had taken agricultural loan from Punjab National Bank and later on did not pay the loan as well interest thereupon. The DRT has allowed the litigation in favour of the bank and issue a decree.
https://vermalegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/order-mahindro-devi.pdf
Yogeshwar Lal Waghrey vs Ashray Properties & Anothers
Authority: National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Category: Consumer Protection Act.
The District Consumer Commission and the State Consumer Commission had dismissed the complaint and first appeal that the complaint is barred by the Limitation. The National Consumer Commission (NCDRC) had allowed the Revision Petition that in case of absence of amenities promised, it is continuous cause of action.
https://vermalegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Yogi-order.pdf