Page 14 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

xii EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
CIGARETTES AND OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS (PROHIBITION
OF ADVERTISEMENT AND REGULATION OF TRADE AND
COMMERCE, PRODUCTION, SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION) ACT,
2003 :
— Section 32 - See under DUTY FREE SHOPS .................... 794
Cigarettes smuggling - Settlement application not sustainable - See under
SETTLEMENT APPLICATION .......................... 840
Clandestine manufacture and removal - Evidence - Show cause notice
issued on the ground of unrealistic electricity consumption - Mere excess
consumption of electricity without any corroborative evidence relating to
the purchase of raw material, conversion of the raw material into final
product and clearance thereof from the manufacturing unit to the
respective buyers, not raises presumption of evasion of duty - Report of
Dr. N.K. Batra relied upon to issue the show cause notice against
clandestine removal of final product not corroborated by any other
evidence - Further, report by Joint Plant Committee constituted by the
Ministry of Steel, Government of India contained contrary findings - No
experiments conducted for devising consumption norms of electricity for
producing one MT of finished product - Order­in­Original is based upon
mere presumptions and possibilities, and, nothing has been proved at all
by the respondents, especially unaccounted manufacturing of M.S. Ingots
and clandestine removal thereof — Sukh Sagar Metals (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
(Jhar.) ......................................... 801
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 :
— Section 436 - See under BAIL ............................ 830
Common inputs used in manufacture of dutiable goods as well as exempted
goods, demand under Rule 6(3A)(i) of CCR not sustainable on doing
proportionate reversal - See under CENVAT CREDIT .............. 867
Confessional statement without any corroborative evidence is not sufficient
evidence for prosecution under Customs Act - See under PROSECUTION . . 817
Confiscated goods - Sale of confiscated goods - Order to return confiscated
gold passed after 14 years of disposal - No denial that servant of
appellant received notice at time of disposal of seized goods - Disposal of
seized goods in accordance of statutory provisions - Only sale proceeds
to be returned while complying with directions of return of seized gold -
Appellant held to be owner of seized/confiscated by order dated 13-5-
2005 - Time taken till order of Tribunal dated 24-7-2015 [2015 (323) E.L.T.
621 (Tri. - Del.)] directing the return of impugned gold on account of
mistaken identity of appellant himself - That another name sake had
impersonated actual owner/appellant not any mistake or delay on part
of Department which followed due procedure for disposal of said gold in
year 2001 - Plea of appellant that no notice served before disposal not
acceptable in view of admitted mistaken identity of owner of gold - Fact
that gold being commodity whose value increased enormously since date
of impugned disposal in the year 2001 till date of order of return in 2015
not to matter as Department not at fault in disposing gold - Department
duly complied with order of return of confiscated goods by refunding
sale proceeds as received in 2001 - Appellant not entitled for gold as such
nor for its market value as prevalent in year 2015 - Sections 110 and 111
of Customs Act, 1962 — Badri Narayan Sharma v. Commr. of Cus., C. Ex. & Service
Tax, Jaipur (Tri. - Del.) .................................. 873
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  14