Page 9 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] INDEX - 15th May, 2020 vii
Om Sai Trading Company v. Union of India (Pat.) ................ 542
Prerna Singh v. Commissioner of Customs (Import-II), Mumbai (Tri. -
Mumbai)....................................... 610
Principal Commissioner of Central Tax v. Jain & Company (Del.) ........ 538
Radhe Exim Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad (Tri. -
Ahmd.) ....................................... 600
Sakthi Sugars Ltd.; See Commissioner v. Sakthi Sugars Ltd. (Tri. - Chennai) ... 577
Santosh Kumar Poddar v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Kolkata (Tri. -
Kolkata) ....................................... 606
Shree Balaji Automobiles; See Commissioner v. Shree Balaji Automobiles
(Bom.) ........................................ 557
Steel Authority of India Ltd.; See Commissioner v. Steel Authority of India
Ltd. (S.C.) ...................................... 478
Super Oil Company v. Union of India (P & H) ................... 536
TBK India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (Bom.) .................... 574
Uni Products India Ltd.; See Commissioner v. Uni Products India Ltd.
(S.C.) ......................................... 465
Union of India v. Hukmichand Jain (Bom.) ..................... 524
Union of India v. V.V.F. Ltd. (S.C.) ......................... 495
V.V. Mineral v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin (Tri. - Bang.) ......... 614
V.V.F. Ltd.; See Union of India v. V.V.F. Ltd. (S.C.) ................ 495

SUBJECT INDEX

[CASE LAW : CUSTOMS, EXCISE & EXIM]

Acquisition of Gold - Burden of proof of licit acquisition of Gold having
been discharged by accused, confiscation not sustainable - See under
SMUGGLING .................................... 606
Acquittal of accused for Customs offence justified in absence of independent
corroboration or evidence especially after retraction of Statement - See
under PROSECUTION ............................... 527
— of person accused of not fulfilling export obligation when justified - See
under PROSECUTION ............................... 524
Adjudication - Belated adjudication not sustainable - See under SHOW
CAUSE NOTICE .................................. 536
— Jurisdiction - Penalty, imposition of - Appellants subjected themselves to
the jurisdiction of Customs Act, 1962 upon notice sent to them under
Section 108 ibid which would have otherwise ensured through
extradition process - Appellant also confessed in her statement as CEO of
her company that appellant Seville Products Ltd. resorting to large scale
under-invoicing and consequently by misdeclaring transaction value as
well as Retail Sales Price (RSP) evaded duty during importation of goods
- Such wrongdoing having had its effect in the Mumbai Customs
jurisdiction and appellants having aided the importer in such
wrongdoing, penalty under Section 112 ibid rightly invoked - Further
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  9