Page 23 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] INDEX - 1st June, 2020 xxi
Redemption fine imposable even if goods have been released on bond -
Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 — Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Madras
Petrochem Ltd. (Mad.) .................................. 652
Re-export of confiscated goods - Permission to re-export gold articles not
sought before Lower Authorities - Hence, re-export of confiscated goods
cannot be considered at stage of revision - Revision application rejected -
Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 — In Re : Ajay Gupta (G.O.I.) ........... 735
Remand powers of Commissioner (Appeals), scope of - See under POWER
OF COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ........................ 740
Renal Dialysis Equipment, classification of - See under BLOOD FILTERS .... 686
Retracted statement not a reliable evidence - See under EVIDENCE ....... 701
Revision - Notice to assessee of petition filed by Department sent to wrong
address - Assessee also filing revision of same appellate order -
Necessary to decide cross-appeal/cross-revision together though
separately filed against common order - Revisional authority required to
decide both revision petitions together after notice to assessee on his
correct address - Ex parte order in revision petition filed by Department
set aside - Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962 — Manoj Kumar Sharma v.
Union of India (Raj.) ................................... 671
Revision application - Limitation - Delay in filing - Condonation of - Bona
fide mistake - Filing of appeal before wrong forum - HELD : If period
consumed in pursuing appeal before CESTAT excluded, applicant taken
168 days in filing Revision Application i.e. 90 days for filing appeal with
CESTAT usually which should have been Revisionary Authority in
ordinary course and subsequently 78 days in filing before Revisionary
Authority after dismissal of appeal by Tribunal - Delay in filing
application on account of wrongly filing appeal in CESTAT seems to be
bona fide mistake and hence condonable - Application allowed - Section
129DD(2) of Customs Act, 1962 — In Re : DCS International Trading Pvt. Ltd.
(G.O.I.) ........................................ 740
Revocation of Courier Licence, appeal maintainable before Tribunal - See
under APPEAL TO APPELLATE TRIBUNAL .................. 696
— of Courier Licence, without conducting enquiry, not sustainable - See
under COURIER AGENCY LICENCE ...................... 696
— of Customs Broker Licence, time limit for issuing show cause notice is
mandatory - See under CUSTOMS BROKER’S LICENCE ............ 689
Search and seizure - Conduct of - Investigation done by Wild Life
Authorities and DRI conducted search and seizure - No documentary
evidence for authorisation to DRI for search and seizure - No information
given to local police prior to search - No document produced for
materials/documents seized/reseized from DRI by complainant,
Authorized Ranger under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Despite
opportunities for Customs/DRI, only xerox copy tendered and it was not
submitted under oath - HELD : It was not mere irregularity - There was
grave suspicion regarding manner and mode of search and seizure, and it
could not be used for conviction of offence under Wild Life (Protection)
Act, 1972 — Quasim Ali v. Sajal Baran Das (Cal.) .................... 673
Seizure of forex and Indian currency from incoming passenger, confiscation
and penalty sustainable - See under CONFISCATION AND PENALTY ... 750
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  23