Page 16 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

xiv EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Areca Nuts allegedly smuggled from Nepal, confiscation not sustainable on
lack of evidence - See under SEIZED GOODS .................. 237
Cardamom not notified item, onus on department to establish smuggling -
See under CONFISCATION ............................ 277
C.B.E. & C. Circular dated 22-3-1968 - See under POWER ............. 281
C.B.E. & C. Circular dated 25-3-1968 - See under POWER ............. 281
CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 :
— Section 11B - See under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ........... 194, 266
— See also under SEZ ............................. 266
— Section 35G - See under APPEAL TO HIGH COURT .............. 220
— Section 35L(2) - See under APPEAL TO HIGH COURT ............. 220
Central Excise duty paid by DTA supplier on SEZ supplies, refund not
admissible to SEZ unit/developer - See under SEZ ............... 266
CENTRAL EXCISE NOTIFICATION :
— Notification No. 3/2005-C.E. - See under POWER ................ 281
CENTRAL EXCISE TARIFF ACT, 1985 :
Chapter/Heading/Sub-heading/Tariff Item
— 2710 13 - See under SPIRIT ............................. 273
Challenge of methodology of adjudication proceedings in writ proceedings
when not sustainable - See under ADJUDICATION PROCEEDINGS ..... 247
Communication of Deputy Commissioner of Customs to effect that
Commissioner of Customs had allowed provisional release on conditions
is not an appealable order - See under APPEAL TO APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL ..................................... 297
Confiscation of goods imported at unauthorized port when set aside by
permitting transshipment to authorized port - See under IMPORT ....... 303
— of seized Areca Nuts allegedly smuggled from Nepal not sustainable on
lack of evidence - See under SEIZED GOODS .................. 237
— Smuggled goods - Large cardamom not notified item - Onus to prove that
goods smuggled lies upon Revenue and to be discharged by production
of sufficient and positive evidence - Trade opinion that goods of foreign
origin insufficient especially when assessee produced the purchase
ledger showing purchase of goods from local person located in India -
Trade opinion not to be considered to be an expert opinion - That
cardamom may be of foreign origin by itself not sufficient to hold them to
be of smuggled nature - No evidence to show that cardamoms were
smuggled - Setting aside of confiscation and penalties affirmed - Sections
111, 112 and 123 of Customs Act, 1962 — Commissioner of Customs (Prev.),
Lucknow v. Pinki Agarwal (Tri. - All.) ........................... 277
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :
— Article 226 - See under ADJUDICATION ..................... 206
— See also under ADJUDICATION PROCEEDINGS ........... 247
— See also under WRIT JURISDICTION .................. 247
Contemporary imports of similar goods from same supplier by PSU when
not sufficient evidence to enhance value - See under VALUATION
(CUSTOMS) ..................................... 279
CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 :
— Section 14 - See under VALUATION (CUSTOMS) ............. 257, 279
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  32