Page 21 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] INDEX - 15th May, 2020 xix
Penalty (Contd.)
identity etc. of the appellant not established in the present case but
imposed penalty even when the investigations against the appellant still
pending in the present case - Any act performed by appellant in respect
of any other goods which may be similar/same/identical, but not the
subject matter of the proceedings cannot be reason for imposition of
penalty under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 - However, number of
persons including the present appellant not being investigated in this
case, and the investigation being kept open, this order setting aside the
penalty herein should not be treated as exoneration of the appellant in
the proceedings which follow on completion of investigations against
those persons — A.T. Maideen v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Rohtak
(Tri. - Chan.) ...................................... 587
— Imposition of penalty on the Director of a Company without making the
Company a party to the proceeding not justifiable and accordingly set
aside - More so, when the confiscation of the seized goods is set aside,
penalization thereof is not maintainable upon the appellants herein -
Sections 112 and 114A of Customs Act, 1962 — Santosh Kumar Poddar v.
Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Kolkata (Tri. - Kolkata) .................. 606
— Imposition on CEO of company on establishing under invoicing on
import - See under ADJUDICATION ....................... 610
Pharmaceuticals for repacking - Exemption - Re-import - Since repacking
amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 as
well as Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff it cannot be
called as “repair or reconditioning” under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus.
- Hence, exemption under notification ibid on re-import not available —
Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad (Tri. - Hyd.) ......... 622
“Popular meaning test”, scope of application for classification - See under
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE ........................ 465
Power to Review its own decisions not available to Appellate Tribunal - See
under APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.......................... 557
— to take samples after Customs clearance - See under SAMPLES ........ 536
Precedent decisions not considered by Tribunal, order set aside - See under
APPEAL TO APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ...................... 574
Pre-export restrictions/obligations, applicability on export of Garnet - See
under EXIM ..................................... 614
Promissory estoppel not applicable on modification/variation in area based
exemption scheme - See under AREA BASED EXEMPTION .......... 495
Proper hearing opportunity not granted before adjudication, natural justice
violated - See under ADJUDICATION ...................... 614
Prosecution - Acquittal - Retraction of admission by accused - Acquittal on
the ground that statements of accused did not have any evidentiary value
in absence of independent corroboration or evidence especially after
retraction - Panch witness of panchnama recorded when goods were
seized, had not testified - All statements recorded in English but accused
contending that they do not read or write English - Accused retracting
confession recorded on first available opportunity - Detention of accused
by Customs Authorities from 22-1-1987 to 25-1-1987 was in violation of
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  21