Page 10 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

viii EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Adjudication (Contd.)
appellant Prerna never rescinded from her statement and in view of
Section 56 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 such admission needs no further
proof to hold appellants guilty of violation of Section 112(a) of Customs
Act, 1962 — Prerna Singh v. Commissioner of Customs (Import-II), Mumbai (Tri. -
Mumbai) ........................................ 610
— Natural justice - Proper hearing, absence of - Show cause notice issued on
26-7-2019 proposing confiscation of goods, provided 30 days time to file
reply - However, impugned order of absolute confiscation passed on next
day itself i.e. 27-7-2019 without affording opportunity of filing reply to
show cause notice to assessee - HELD : Opportunity of proper hearing
ought to be accorded to assessee against whom order of absolute
confiscation passed on next day of issue of show cause notice and
without taking proper reply to show cause notice - Manner and speed
with which impugned order passed by Commissioner, in complete
violation of principles of natural justice - Impugned order not sustainable
in law - Article 226 of Constitution of India — V.V. Mineral v. Commissioner of
Customs, Cochin (Tri. - Bang.) ............................... 614
Advance licence holder cannot be prohibited from outsourcing goods
imported duty free for manufacturing to other persons - See under JOB
WORK OR SALE OF IMPORTED GOODS .................... 602
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Dismissal thereof as premature - Non-
consideration of precedent decisions - Tribunal without considering
decisions of co-ordinate Benches on the issue relating to inclusion of
royalty in assessable value, dismissing appeal as pre-mature on the
ground of non-finalization of assessment as directed by first appellate
authority - It is not clear as to whether these decisions of co-ordinate
Benches were brought to notice of Tribunal or not - Since in identical
circumstances, co-ordinate Benches had taken different views, matter is
remanded to Tribunal to examine these decisions and then arrive at
conclusion as to whether appeal is pre-mature or not and in case it is not,
then decide issue on merits - Section 129A of Customs Act, 1962 - Article
226 of Constitution of India — TBK India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (Bom.) ....... 574
Appeal to High Court - Maintainability of - Impugned order of Tribunal
being challenged on the ground of being passed in breach of the
principles of natural justice and in ignorance of the law of limitation, it
cannot be said that appeal has a relation to classification of goods, its
valuation or the rate of duty - Appeal maintainable under Section 35G of
Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 —
General Security & Information Services v. Commr. of CGST & C. Ex., Kolkata (Cal.) ...... 553
Appellate Tribunal - No power of Review - Re-deciding already decided
issue - Power to Review - After having already decided Appeal No.
C/841/1997 vide its order dated 10-7-1998, re-deciding same appeal in
different manner after 9 years vide its order dated 19-4-2007 by Tribunal
not sustainable - Apparently fact of case having already been disposed of
was never brought to knowledge of Tribunal either by registry or by SDR
at time of re-deciding the case - Issuance of second order would
tantamount to review of its own earlier order for which reportedly no
power is available with Tribunal - In view of above, later order dated 19-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  10