Page 308 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

954 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Metallurgical Industry — Mulchand M. Zaveri v. Commissioner of Customs,
Ahmedabad (Tri. - Ahmd.) ................................ 417
Outsourcing goods - Advance licence holder cannot be prohibited from
outsourcing goods imported duty free for manufacturing to other
persons - See under JOB WORK .......................... 602
Overvaluation established with money flow to beneficiaries, confiscation
sustainable - See under MISDECLARATION ................... 849
— on export of leather jackets in order to higher amount of drawback not
established - See under VALUATION (CUSTOMS) ............... 257
Parallel invoices having different format from the invoice format of the
assessee not reliable evidence of clandestine removal - See under
DEMAND ...................................... 121
Partner of firm cannot be imposed with penalty when penalty already
imposed on firm - See under PENALTY ...................... 417
Peas import - Validity of notification modifying import from free to
restricted - See under EXIM ............................ 305
Pen drive data is not substantial evidence of clandestine removal - See under
EVIDENCE ..................................... 632
PENALTY :
— and Confiscation on non-fulfillment of export obligation under EPCG,
scope of order by Customs when DGFT’s order is in favour of assessee -
See under EXIM ................................... 847
— Customs - Availment of ineligible drawback by claiming wrong
classification for Ductile iron castings - Particulars regarding Tariff item
classification of export product not furnished by applicant in Shipping
Bills and other export documents - Applicant firm failed to make true
declaration and thus contravened provisions of Section 50(2) of Customs
Act, 1962 read with Rule 12(1) of Customs, Central Excise Duties and
Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 - But for intervention and painstaking
investigation by Officers of Customs Intelligence Unit, Coimbatore
ineligible duty drawback erroneously sanctioned by Department would
have gone unnoticed therefore act of applicant attracts penalty under
Customs Act, 1962 - However, in view of full and true disclosure of
additional duty liability, and co-operation extended during investigation
and proceedings before Settlement Commission, case fit for extending
partial immunity from penalty to applicant - Section 50(2) of Customs
Act, 1962 read with Rule 12(1) of Customs, Central Excise Duties and
Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 — In Re : Indo Shell Cast Pvt. Ltd. (Sett. Comm.) . . 771
— Drawback claim - Delayed submission of BRC - Adjudicating authority
correct in issuing Show Cause Notice and imposing penalty for delay in
submission of BRC and delayed realization of exports proceeds -
However, since exports proceeds have actually been realized and in view
of fact that exporters do face difficulty and imposition of higher penalty
may result in denial of export incentives, penalty of ` 25,000 reduced to
` 5,000 - Section 117 of Customs Act, 1962 - Article 226 of Constitution of
India — Nana Desi Ainnurruvar v. Revisionary Authority & Joint Secretary, M.F. (D.R.),
New Delhi (Mad.) .................................... 551
— for export of prohibited goods - Appellant not investigated in the case of
present seizure and confiscation of red sanders - Statement relied upon
by the Commissioner recorded in case of some other investigation,
seizure and confiscation - Commissioner admitted that even the true
identity etc. of the appellant not established in the present case but
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  308