Page 12 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

x EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
dissenting opinions are bound by the statute to state the point or points
of difference and make reference after making such a statement - An
omnibus order cannot take place of the statement on point or points of
difference - Entire appeal cannot be referred - Matter referred to the
Hon’ble Members constituting the Division Bench to specifically
formulate the point or points of difference of opinion while placing the
matter before the President for nominating a third Member to decide the
point or points of difference of opinion - Section 129C(5) of Customs Act,
1962 — Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva v. Sun Tex (Tri. - Mumbai) ..... 892
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Disposal of - Appeal of employees of
importer against penalty imposed on them - Importer was before High
Court and not before Tribunal - HELD : Disposal of employees appeals
would not be premature - Appeals of employees could not be kept
pending to await convenience/contingency of importer’s appeal - It was
immaterial that penalties were inextricably linked to confiscability, and
during disposal of appeal, Tribunal could refer to legal and procedural
aspects how imported goods should have been dealt with - Section 129A
of Customs Act, 1962 — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I.,
Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ................................. 849
Appellate Tribunal’s Order - Non-speaking order - Demand of Customs
duty on wastage generated in warehouse of EOU - Impugned order
indicating that main ground of non-removal of wastage and hence
demand being premature as agitated by appellant in his appeal has not
been discussed at all - Another ground agitated that SION norms are not
applicable to EOUs has also not been discussed - ROM application of
appellant also dismissed with a cryptic order - In view of above,
impugned non-speaking order set aside and matter remanded to
Tribunal for fresh disposal as expeditiously as possible by addressing
two main grounds ibid - Section 129B of Customs Act, 1962 — GKB
Ophthalmics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Goa (Bom.) .................. 826
Attachment of any property under Central Excise law, other than excisable
goods not sustainable - See under GUTKA .................... 813
Bail - Evasion of duty - Market price of seized gold not exceeding one crore
of rupees - No allegations that seized gold belonged to category of
prohibited goods duly notified by Central Government or that evasion or
attempted evasion of duty exceeded fifty lakh rupees - Fraud also not
alleged - Offence bailable offence - Bail to be granted on furnishing
personal bond with two sureties - Sections 104 and 135 of Customs Act,
1962 - Section 436 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Chaman Kumar
Shah v. Union of India (All.) ............................... 830
Business expenditure - Sales tax paid debited in separate account for set off
against subsequent sales is not business expenditure, deduction not
permissible - See under TAX RECOVERABLE ACCOUNT ........... 785
— under Income Tax law, deduction of unutilised credit at end of
accounting year not permissible - See under CENVAT/MODVAT
CREDIT ....................................... 785
CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 :
— Section 11 - See under GUTKA ........................... 813
CENTRAL EXCISE NOTIFICATIONS :
— Notification No. 8/2004-C.E. - See under GUTKA ................ 813

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  12