Page 20 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

xviii EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Large cardamom not notified item, onus on department to establish
smuggling - See under CONFISCATION ..................... 277
Laundry soap manufactured with aid of gas, exemption admissible - See
under POWER .................................... 281
Leather jackets export, allegation of overvaluation in order to claim higher
drawback not established - See under VALUATION (CUSTOMS) ....... 257
Machine - Classification of Injection moulding machine for moulding
Synthetic Polymer for generating footwear soles - See under ANTI-
DUMPING DUTY .................................. 193
Machinery import as part of turnkey project on which duty paid in excess,
refund not deniable on ground of unjust enrichment - See under
REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ............................ 194
Manufacture of laundry soap with aid of gas, exemption admissible - See
under POWER .................................... 281
Methodology of adjudication proceedings when cannot be challenged in
writ proceedings - See under ADJUDICATION PROCEEDINGS ........ 247
Money-laundering - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) -
Jurisdiction over predicate offence cases - Scope of Section 44(1)(c) ibid
read along with Section 71 ibid - Since non obstante clause in Section
44(1) ibid applies only to procedural matters, impugned Section 71 ibid
cannot support contention that Section 44(1) ibid overrides substantive
law in relation to Statutes covering predicate offence - Section 71 ibid
itself clarifies that provisions of Act shall have effect notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law - Evidently,
Money Laundering Act, having primacy in field of operation to which
Act extends and within that domain, same to have overriding effect over
any other inconsistent provisions in other Statutes - Section 71 ibid not
omnibus overriding effect over all other Statutes - Section 44(1)(c) and
Section 71 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Inspector of
Police, CBI/SCB v. Asstt. Dir., Directorate of Enforcement (Ker.) ............... 209
— Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - Jurisdiction over
scheduled offence cases - Committal of criminal complaint pending
before CBI Court under Section 44(1)(c) of Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 to designated Court, challenged - HELD :
Prevention Money Laundering Act, 2002 does not contemplate that
offence under Money Laundering Act and predicate offence shall both be
tried by same Special Court under Money Laundering Act - Existence of
impugned Section 44(1)(c) ibid visualizes existence of two separate
proceedings before two Courts, one being Special Court under Money
Laundering Act - Section 44(1)(c) ibid confers authority on authorized
officer under Money Laundering Act to make application requesting
Court to commit case relating to predicate offence to Special Court -
Hence, unless such application made, predicate offence shall be
continued in Court competent under PMLA - Section 71 ibid, does not
create absolute overriding effect of Money Laundering Act, over all other
statutes but applies only in limited sense to extent of inconsistency of
other statutes over Money Laundering Act - Hence, if case such where
Court taking cognizance of scheduled offence other than Special Court
which has taken cognizance of complaint of offence of Money
Laundering, competent authority under Money Laundering Act given
discretion to make application under Section 44(1)(c) ibid in appropriate
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  36