Page 22 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

xx EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Proof of export not established on making SEZ supply under advance
authorization licence without preparing Bill of Export - See under EXIM ... 638
Prosecution - Offence under Customs Act, 1962 and Imports and Exports
(Control) Act, 1947 - Testimony of panch witness or person who typed it
absent - Panchnama written in English whereas panch witnesses signed
in Hindi and Gujarati, and there was no record that panch witnesses
knew English - No details given how panch and prosecution witnesses
reached premises - Prosecution witness from raiding party did not know
details of panchnama because he was not party to panchnama, and did
not remember mode of transport used to reach premises - HELD : It
could not be believed panchnama as produced was really prepared -
Without corroborative evidence and dehors panchnama, accused could
not be convicted based on confession recorded under Section 108 of
Customs Act, 1962 — Union of India v. Kisan Ratan Singh (Bom.) ............ 714
Re-adjudication - Natural justice violated in re-adjudication on not
furnishing documents ordered to be furnished by CESTAT in remand
order - See under ADJUDICATION ........................ 663
Rebate of duty paid on final/export goods when rightly denied - See under
EXPORT REBATE .................................. 737
— of Excise duty - Procedural lapse - Exported Mill Scale falling under Tariff
Item 26190 09 09 of Central Excise Tariff mistakenly mentioned as Tariff
Item 7204 41 00 ibid on shipping bill - HELD : Description of goods same
on ARE-2 as well as Shipping Bill - Export of goods and payment of duty
on such export goods in terms of Notification No. 41/2001-C.E. (N.T.)
read with Notification No. 40/2001-C.E. (N.T.) to be essential condition
for granting rebate - CETH on shipping bill mentioned wrongly due to
oversight - Bank Realisation Certificate mentioning details relating to
invoice no. and date, description of goods, Customs Authenticated
Shipping Bill, Bill of Lading and FOB value realized in Foreign Exchange,
not challenged - Also, fact that Customs preventive officer certified
export of impugned consignment and remittance also received against
said export, not contested - No reason to interfere with order of
Commissioner (Appeals) - Revision application rejected - Section 35EE of
Central Excise Act, 1944 - Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 — In Re :
Gimpex Pvt. Ltd. (G.O.I.) ................................. 745
Rebate claim cannot be rejected for failure to file Disclaimer Certificate from
recipient SEZ unit evidencing that drawback not claimed on goods - See
under EXPORT REBATE .............................. 748
Rectification of mistake - Scope of - Decision taken by Tribunal based on
law as it stood then - Law declared as otherwise, based on a change of
opinion in a subsequent decision of Supreme Court - Such a change of
opinion of law cannot be taken as a ‘mistake apparent on the face of the
record’ which could be rectified by invoking Section 35C(2) of Central
Excise Act, 1944 - Further, such material cannot be used for unsettling the
settled position attained through disposal of appeal and cannot be
utilized for reopening a concluded decision, which had attained finality
between parties inter se — Malabar Regional Co-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. v.
C.C.E., Cochin (Ker.) ................................... 708
Redemption of advance authorization licence on non-fulfillment of export
obligation, scope of - See under EXIM ....................... 646

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  22