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
   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221