Page 16 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

xiv EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT, 1975 :
Chapter/Heading/Sub-heading/Tariff Item
— Section 3(7) - See under VALUATION (CUSTOMS) ............... 559
— 7204 41 00 - See under MELTING SCRAP ..................... 591
— 7204 49 00 - See under MELTING SCRAP ..................... 591
CUSTOMS VALUATION (DETERMINATION OF PRICE OF
IMPORTED GOODS) RULES, 1988 :
— Rule 9(1)(e) - See under VALUATION (CUSTOMS) ............... 478
Date of reckoning of applicability of restrictions on import - See under
CONFISCATION .................................. 600
Delayed refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD), interest payable - See
under INTEREST .................................. 571
Delayed submission of BRC in DBK claim, penalty imposable - See under
PENALTY ...................................... 551
DEMAND :
— on import of Motor Ship on filing belated Bill of Entry - See under
IMPORT ....................................... 559
Designing and engineering fee on import under Turnkey projects, when
not includible in assessable value - See under VALUATION (CUSTOMS) ... 478
D.G.F.T Notification No. 26/2015-20 - See under EXIM ............... 614
Director of a Company cannot be penalized without making the Company a
party to the proceeding - See under PENALTY .................. 606
Drawback claim - Penalty imposable on delayed submission of BRC - See
under PENALTY .................................. 551
Duty paid under protest at the time of filing Bill of Entry, separate request
for re-assessement not required - See under ASSESSMENT ........... 577
Engineering and designing fee on import under Turnkey projects, when not
includible in assessable value - See under VALUATION (CUSTOMS) ..... 478
Evidence - Acquittal of accused for Customs offence justified in absence of
independent corroboration or evidence especially after retraction of
Statement - See under PROSECUTION ...................... 527
— Statements of noticees - Statements recorded without the signatures of
Central Excise Officer - Tribunal should have undertaken a more
thorough scrutiny of the statements of the parties and other witnesses
recorded by the officers of appellant - Tribunal being the last fact finding
authority could have called upon appellant to disclose as to which of the
officers recorded the statements under Section 14 of Central Excise Act,
1944 and to ascertain, as to whether or not, they were authorized to
record such statements - Tribunal should have also appreciated the
reasoning given by Adjudicating Authority that earlier statements
though not bearing the signatures of the officer who recorded the same,
stood incorporated in the subsequent statement made by the same person
when he affirmed the fact that his statements was so recorded -
Accordingly, matter remanded back to the Tribunal for reappreciation of
the evidence on this aspect — Principal Commissioner of Central Tax v. Jain &
Company (Del.) ..................................... 538
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  16