Page 267 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 913
demand under Rule 6(3A)(i) of CCR not sustainable on doing
proportionate reversal - See under CENVAT CREDIT ............. 867
“Common parlance test”, scope of application for classification - See under
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE ........................ 465
Communication of Deputy Commissioner of Customs to effect that
Commissioner of Customs had allowed provisional release on conditions
is not an appealable order - See under APPEAL TO APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL ..................................... 297
Competent officer - Show Cause Notices issued on same issue answerable to
different adjudicating authority to be transferred and adjudicated by the
officer competent to decide the case involving higher duty - See under
ADJUDICATION ................................... 46
Condonation of delay in filing revision application - See under REVISION
APPLICATION ................................... 740
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
Confiscation - Absolute confiscation of gold bars - Failure to declare gold
bars and forex brought from UAE - Contention that Customs declaration
form intentionally misplaced by Customs officer doubtful since resumed
customs duty declaration form dated 23-9-2012 duly signed by passenger
showed ‘nil’ dutiable goods - Said form given without any persuasion or
coercion from Customs Authorities - Fact of non-declaration duly
recorded in statement signed by passenger - Burden of proof on
passenger from whom gold recovered to show that gold not smuggled -
Retraction of statements delay tactics adopted with intention to derail
investigation and malign customs officers - Such statements were
admissible as evidence - No new facts shown while reiterating request for
cross-examination of concerned persons and that too subsequently after
personal hearing - No useful purpose to be served by allowing cross-
examination at this stage when same already considered and denied by
both adjudicating authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) - Request
for cross-examination was to denied - 8 kgs gold brought by passenger
instead of 1 Kg permitted under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. -
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  267