Page 286 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

932 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Evidence (Contd.)
— establishing clandestine removal of goods, demand sustainable - See
under DEMAND .................................. 321
— for clandestine removal, scope of applicability and extent of Section 9D(1)
of Central Excise Act, 1944 - See under DEMAND ................ 321
— Fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit by replacing new material with
bazar scrap, credit not deniable in absence of cogent evidence - See under
CENVAT CREDIT .................................. 129
— Hot-rolled steel plates (non-alloy) - Contemporary imports by PSU when
not reliable evidence for enhancement of value - See under VALUATION
(CUSTOMS) ..................................... 279
— of clandestine manufacture and removal, excess electricity consumption is
not sufficient evidence without corroboration - See under
CLANDESTINE MANUFACTURE AND REMOVAL .............. 801
— of Gold smuggling not established by department, confiscation not
sustainable - See under GOLD SMUGGLING .................. 372
— Statements of noticees - Statements recorded without the signatures of
Central Excise Officer - Tribunal should have undertaken a more
thorough scrutiny of the statements of the parties and other witnesses
recorded by the officers of appellant - Tribunal being the last fact finding
authority could have called upon appellant to disclose as to which of the
officers recorded the statements under Section 14 of Central Excise Act,
1944 and to ascertain, as to whether or not, they were authorized to
record such statements - Tribunal should have also appreciated the
reasoning given by Adjudicating Authority that earlier statements
though not bearing the signatures of the officer who recorded the same,
stood incorporated in the subsequent statement made by the same person
when he affirmed the fact that his statements was so recorded -
Accordingly, matter remanded back to the Tribunal for reappreciation of
the evidence on this aspect — Principal Commissioner of Central Tax v. Jain &
Company (Del.) ..................................... 538
— Third Party Evidence cannot be relied for alleging clandestine removal -
See under DEMAND ................................ 129
— under FERA - Statement of employee of accused which retracted next day
and bereft of any particulars such as names of persons from whom seized
funds received and distributed, cannot be relied upon particularly when
same not corroborated with any other evidence — Manak Kala v. Union of
India (Del.) ....................................... 701
— Undervaluation of SS Flats, demand not sustainable in absence of cogent
evidence - See under DEMAND .......................... 129
Ex parte order in revision petition filed by Department when set aside - See
under REVISION .................................. 671
— without grant of personal hearing not sustainable - See under
ADJUDICATION .................................. 828
— without issuance of SCN not sustainable - See under ADJUDICATION .... 380
Examination attempts under Customs Broker Regulations 2018, scope of -
See under CUSTOMS BROKERS LICENSING REGULATIONS, 2018 ..... 340
Excess duty paid on import of machinery as part of turnkey project, refund
not deniable on ground of unjust enrichment - See under
REFUND/REFUND CLAIM ............................ 194
Excisability of goods, appeal not lying with High Court - See under
APPEAL TO HIGH COURT ............................ 220
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  286