Page 24 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

xxii EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Search (Contd.)
illegal - Section 102 of Customs Act, 1962 — Union of India v. Jasmine Jayantilal
Thadeshwar (Bom.) .................................... 817
— under Customs Act, scope of - See under PROSECUTION ............ 817
Self-exculpatory statement without corroboration is not sufficient evidence
to establish misdeclaration - See under MISDECLARATION .......... 888
Service of Show Cause Notice on unauthorized person is not effective
service - See under SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ................... 865
Settlement Application - Smuggling of cigarettes - Goods notified after
import but prior to filing application - Maintainability of application -
Instant case, cigarettes were imported in Feb./April, 2016, seized by DRI
in April, 2016, show cause notice issued in April, 2017 and Settlement
Applications filed in Aug./Dec., 2017 - Meanwhile in July, 2016, said
goods were notified under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD :
Settlement Commission clearly erred in entertaining applications in
Aug./Dec., 2017 on ground that at time of import of goods, these were
not notified under Section 123 ibid and hence bar under third proviso of
Section 127B ibid was not applicable - Both on date of issuing show cause
notice and on date of filing of applications, cigarettes had become a
notified item - Bar under Section 127B ibid is enforceable on ‘date when
application was made’ and not from date of import - Since, applications
in this case were made after goods had been notified ibid, Settlement
Commission had no power, jurisdiction and authority to entertain and
decide Settlement Application - Impugned order set aside - Section 127 of
Customs Act, 1962 - Article 226 of Constitution of India — Principal
Additional Director General, DRI v. Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement
Commission (Del.) .................................... 840
Settlement of case - Matter in the case of Respondent 1 has been settled by
the order of Settlement Commission - Amount settled having been paid
and full immunity from prosecution being granted in terms of Section
127H of Customs Act, 1962, appeal filed against Respondent 1
infructuous — Commissioner of Customs (Imp.), ACC, Mumbai v. Big Vision Pvt. Ltd.
(Tri. - Mumbai) ..................................... 878
Show Cause Notice - Service of - No proper authorization given to Rohit
Bhasin to receive notice nor he is a relative of appellant - Service of notice
on this person not effective service of show cause notice on the appellant
- Section 124 of Customs Act, 1962 — Surinder Khanna v. Commissioner of
Customs (Import), New Delhi (Tri. - Del.) .......................... 865
Smuggling of cigarettes, settlement application not sustainable - See under
SETTLEMENT APPLICATION .......................... 840
— of gold, acquittal of accused sustainable due to lack of evidence - See
under PROSECUTION ............................... 817
Statement - Self-exculpatory statement without corroboration is not
sufficient evidence to establish misdeclaration - See under
MISDECLARATION ................................ 888
Statutory authority - Order passed by a Court cannot be so interpreted as
permitting a statutory authority to act in violation of statute - See under
ORDER ....................................... 840
Statutory interest admissible on delay in paying due sales proceeds of
imported goods on abandoning of goods by importer - See under
INTEREST/COMPENSATION .......................... 836
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  24