Page 24 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

xxii EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
after goods had been cleared from Customs Area - Section 144 of
Customs Act, 1962 - Article 226 of Constitution of India — Super Oil
Company v. Union of India (P & H) ............................ 536
Scrap import for melting and making ingots, exemption admissible
notwithstanding classification - See under MELTING SCRAP ......... 591
Seizure of goods - Reason to believe not to be supplemented by fresh
reasons after search or seizure - Goods originated from the State of
Assam and transported to the State of Tamil Nadu (Coimbatore), both
the places being in India not in any specified/notified area - No other
material available on record for seizure of goods except what is recorded
in seizure memo - Grounds on which ‘reason to believe’ formed cannot
be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit - Mere
suspicion cannot be a reason sufficient enough to derive such a
conclusion forming a belief ‘for reason to believe’ - Goods in question
when yet raw, as an unfinished product, meant to be transported to
another State for it to be processed and packaged, whereafter, only,
eventually sold in an open market and if goods are actually unsafe food
then it is not the provision of the Customs Act, 1962 which can be
invoked, for not falling within its purview - Seizure notice quashed -
Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962 — Om Sai Trading Company v. Union of India
(Pat.) ......................................... 542
Shipping vessel import, assessment thereof on belated filing of Bill of entry
- See under IMPORT ................................ 559
— rate of duty and tariff valuation when Bill of Entry filed belatedly - See
under VALUATION (CUSTOMS) ......................... 559
Show cause notice - Adjudication, non-adjudication thereof - Lapse of SCN -
Since SCN issued on 7-2-2014 has not been adjudicated till date, i.e., more
than one year after expiry of five years without seeking extension,
impugned SCN stands quashed - Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 -
Article 226 of Constitution of India — Super Oil Company v. Union of India (P &
H) ......................................... 536
Smuggling - Gold - Burden of proof - Ownership of gold not agitated at any
point of time - Seized gold duly recorded in the books of account of M/s.
Anjani Gold Private Limited which was admittedly computerized -
Purchase invoice issued by State Bank of India showing that 198015.52
grams in Customs auction is also not disputed by the Revenue - Thus
obligation under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 discharged by the
claimant of gold - Revenue not able to adduce any evidence to prove that
subject gold illegally imported by appellants - Order of confiscation
under Sections 111(b) and 111(d) Customs Act, 1962 not sustainable —
Santosh Kumar Poddar v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Kolkata (Tri. - Kolkata) ....... 606
Statement given in respect of some other case cannot relied upon for
imposing penalty on export of prohibited goods - See under PENALTY .... 587
— of accused not having any evidentiary value in absence of independent
corroboration or evidence especially after retraction - See under
PROSECUTION ................................... 527
— of noticees without signatures of officer recording it, evidentiary value
thereof - See under EVIDENCE .......................... 538

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  24