Page 216 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th
P. 216
750 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
findings that a disclaimer is required from M/s. CIPLA is erroneous. The adjudi-
cating authority in its order has mentioned that “the Party has declared that they
have not and shall not claim duty drawback under Customs & Central Excise Duty
Drawback Rules, 1995, on the goods covered under aforesaid ARE-2s in respect of which
they have filed rebate claims.”
8. Accordingly, the Government allows the impugned rebates in re-
spect of 24 claims cumulatively amounting to Rs. 35,00,083/- (Rupees Thirty Five
Lacs and Eighty Three only) to the applicant.
9. Since the applicant’s unit is located in Solan the officer holding the
charge of erstwhile Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Mandi
Gobindgarh under the current jurisdiction of Commissioner CGST, Shimla, is
directed to decide the rebate claims in terms of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules,
2002 read with Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and after
verification of the claim of the applicant that no drawback has been availed by
him in respect of impugned goods.
_______
2020 (372) E.L.T. 750 (G.O.I.)
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
[Department of Revenue - Revisionary Authority]
Ms. Mallika Arya, Additional Secretary
IN RE : MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA
Order Nos. 71-72/2019-Cus., dated 30-12-2019 in F. Nos. 380/15-A/B/2015-RA
and 375/37/B/2017-RA
Confiscation - Absolute confiscation of gold bars - Failure to declare
gold bars and forex brought from UAE - Contention that Customs declaration
form intentionally misplaced by Customs officer doubtful since resumed cus-
toms duty declaration form dated 23-9-2012 duly signed by passenger showed
‘nil’ dutiable goods - Said form given without any persuasion or coercion from
Customs Authorities - Fact of non-declaration duly recorded in statement
signed by passenger - Burden of proof on passenger from whom gold recov-
ered to show that gold not smuggled - Retraction of statements delay tactics
adopted with intention to derail investigation and malign customs officers -
Such statements were admissible as evidence - No new facts shown while reit-
erating request for cross-examination of concerned persons and that too sub-
sequently after personal hearing - No useful purpose to be served by allowing
cross-examination at this stage when same already considered and denied by
both adjudicating authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) - Request for
cross-examination was to denied - 8 kgs gold brought by passenger instead of
1 Kg permitted under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. - Passenger, a NRI and
residing in Dubai for last 15 years cannot take an alibi that he was not aware of
provisions regarding import of gold by NRIs - Passenger had smuggled gold
and did not declare them at red channel counter with an intention to evade
Customs duty - Contention that passenger was carrying 1,05,410 Dirham for
payment of duty in convertible foreign currency on impugned goods baseless -
Instruction vide C.B.E. & C. Instruction F. No. 495/5/92-Cus.-VI, dated
EXCISE LAW TIMES 1st June 2020 216