Page 305 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 951
Money-laundering (Contd.)
— Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - Jurisdiction over
scheduled offence cases - Committal of criminal complaint pending
before CBI Court under Section 44(1)(c) of Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 to designated Court, challenged - HELD :
Prevention Money Laundering Act, 2002 does not contemplate that
offence under Money Laundering Act and predicate offence shall both be
tried by same Special Court under Money Laundering Act - Existence of
impugned Section 44(1)(c) ibid visualizes existence of two separate
proceedings before two Courts, one being Special Court under Money
Laundering Act - Section 44(1)(c) ibid confers authority on authorized
officer under Money Laundering Act to make application requesting
Court to commit case relating to predicate offence to Special Court -
Hence, unless such application made, predicate offence shall be
continued in Court competent under PMLA - Section 71 ibid, does not
create absolute overriding effect of Money Laundering Act, over all other
statutes but applies only in limited sense to extent of inconsistency of
other statutes over Money Laundering Act - Hence, if case such where
Court taking cognizance of scheduled offence other than Special Court
which has taken cognizance of complaint of offence of Money
Laundering, competent authority under Money Laundering Act given
discretion to make application under Section 44(1)(c) ibid in appropriate
cases, in interest of justice and for speedy trial - Court required duly
apply its mind and take proper decision in accordance with law - In other
cases, Special Court trying offence under Money Laundering Act need to
wait for result of trial relating to scheduled offence - Impugned order not
legally sustainable and set aside - Section 44(1)(c) of Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 — Inspector of Police, CBI/SCB v. Asstt. Dir., Directorate of
Enforcement (Ker.) ................................... 209
— Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - Whether, competent
authority obligated to seek committal of obliged predicate offence in
every case - HELD : Parliament did not intend to make it obligatory on
authorized officer under Money Laundering Act to invariably make
application under Section 44(1)(c) ibid - Otherwise, committal under
Section 44(1)(c) ibid would not have been dependent on application by
competent officer under Money Laundering Act - Section 44(1)(c) of
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Inspector of Police, CBI/SCB v.
Asstt. Dir., Directorate of Enforcement (Ker.) ........................ 209
Motor Ship - Demand on import of Motor Ship on filing belated Bill of Entry
- See under IMPORT ................................ 559
Motor Spirit (MS) blended with small quantity of multifunctional additives
to make branded MS, activity not amounting to manufacture - See under
MANUFACTURE ................................. 137
— blending with Ethanol not amounting to ‘manufacture’ - See under
MANUFACTURE ................................. 414
— Industrial solvents and residue obtained as intermediate products by
distillation of naphtha not to be classified as motor spirit - See under
SPIRIT ........................................ 273
Moulding machine for moulding of Synthetic Polymer for generating
footwear soles, classification and levy of ADD - See under ANTI-
DUMPING DUTY ................................. 193
Multifunctional additives - Motor Spirit (MS) blended with small quantity
of multifunctional additives to make branded MS, activity not amounting
to manufacture - See under MANUFACTURE .................. 137
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  305