Page 11 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] INDEX - 15th June, 2020 ix
Sandeep Patil v. Union of India (Bom.) ....................... 794
Sukh Sagar Metals (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (Jhar.) ................ 801
Sun Tex; See Commissioner v. Sun Tex (Tri. - Mumbai) ............... 892
Sunchan Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (Mad.) ...... 836
Surinder Khanna v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi (Tri. -
Del.) ......................................... 865
Union of India v. Jasmine Jayantilal Thadeshwar (Bom.) ............. 817
Vallabh Wool Industries v. Commr. of Cus. (Export), Nhava Sheva (Tri. -
Mumbai)....................................... 888

SUBJECT INDEX
[CASE LAW : CUSTOMS, EXCISE & EXIM]
Abetment of Customs duty evasion by employee in India of foreign
supplier not established, penalty not imposable - See under PENALTY .... 878
Additional duty of excise, scope of refund when application for rectification
of Bill of Entry pending - See under REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ....... 866
Adjudication - Ex parte order - Contention that assessee did not get notice -
Department stating that opportunity of personal hearing will be given to
assessee on condition that he will attend hearing before the adjudicating
authority - Order set aside without going into merits with direction to
assessee to attend office of Adjudicating Authority on date and time fixed
in order - Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 — Javed Shaikh @ Sameer Shah v.
Union of India (Bom.) .................................. 828
— Scope of - It is not restricted to facts elicited in investigation - It can fill
missing gaps - However, opportunity has to be given for
defence/counter for what was not stated in show cause notice — S.
Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ......... 849
Advance Authorizations import, demand on finalization of provisional
assessment on the ground of expiry of Advance Authorization not
sustainable as at time of import it was valid - See under IMPORTS ...... 890
Aggrieved party against Settlement order - See under WRIT JURISDICTION . . 840
Amendment of IGM, scope of - See under IMPORT GENERAL MANIFEST ... 888
Appeal against penalty - Prerequisites of competence and proportionately
with gravitas has to be satisfied - Hence, on appeal against penalty
imposed on employees of importer company, arguments on confiscation
have to be looked into even if employees did not have locus for quashing
of confiscation — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. -
Mumbai) ........................................ 849
— Grounds - Legal submissions cannot be denied admissibility even if
raised for first time — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai
(Tri. - Mumbai) ..................................... 849
— Grounds - On questions of law settled after adjudication order - They are
substantially different from fresh ground of facts — S. Muthusamy v. Addl.
Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ................... 849
— Reference on difference of opinion - Third Member on Reference - Exact
differences to be made by dissenting Members - Members who expressed

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  11