Page 316 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

962 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Prosecution (Contd.)
— Offence under Customs Act, 1962 and Imports and Exports (Control) Act,
1947 - Testimony of panch witness or person who typed it absent -
Panchnama written in English whereas panch witnesses signed in Hindi
and Gujarati, and there was no record that panch witnesses knew English
- No details given how panch and prosecution witnesses reached
premises - Prosecution witness from raiding party did not know details
of panchnama because he was not party to panchnama, and did not
remember mode of transport used to reach premises - HELD : It could
not be believed panchnama as produced was really prepared - Without
corroborative evidence and dehors panchnama, accused could not be
convicted based on confession recorded under Section 108 of Customs
Act, 1962 — Union of India v. Kisan Ratan Singh (Bom.) ................. 714
— Presumption in favour of accused - Settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless
they are proved guilty by competent Court of law - In this case, having
secured acquittal from Trial Court, this presumption is reinforced and
strengthened in accused’s favour in appellate Court — Union of India v.
Jasmine Jayantilal Thadeshwar (Bom.) ........................... 817
— Smuggling of gold - Acquittal - Accused No. 12 arraigned only because of
confessional statement of Co-accused No. 1 and acquitted - Accused No.
14 arraigned because of statement of Accused No. 12 acquitted by trial
Court relying on judgment in respect of Accused No. 12 - Such reliance
cannot be said to be misplaced - Confession recorded of Accused No. 1
not meeting with parameters of Section 26 of Evidence Act, 1872 -
Identity of Accused No. 14 not established and he arraigned by name of
Kasam on statement of co-accused - Discharge of Accused No. 14 proper
- Section 135 of Customs Act, 1962 - Section 85 of Gold Control Act, 1968
— Supdt. of Customs, Bhuj v. State of Gujarat (Guj.) .................... 318
Provisional Assessment finalized and refund granted, demand of refund
without review of assessment order not sustainable - See under
DEMAND ...................................... 30
— Synthetic waste imported and cleared on provisional assessment, samples
cannot be drawn from factory after clearance of goods from Customs
area - See under SAMPLES ............................. 42
Public Notice cannot be a ground for denial of drawback otherwise
admissible by Notification - See under DRAWBACK .............. 254
Public orders made by authorities are meant to have public effect and must
be construed objectively with reference to language used in order itself —
J.K. Traders v. Union of India (Pat.) ............................ 237
Pulses import - Validity of notification modifying import from free to
restricted - See under EXIM ............................ 305
Quantum of penalty - See under PENALTY ..................... 298
Quiz Game - Online Quiz Game - Permission thereof - Petitioner’s
application in this regard rejected on the ground of lapse of UP
Entertainment and Betting Tax Act and Rules after introduction of GST
law - Since, petitioner has re-applied for permission under new
applicable Rules/Regulations in this regard, State directed to decide on
petitioner’s application within seven days of removal of defects by
applicant - Article 226 of Constitution of India — Luck India Online
Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (All.) ........................ 835
Rate of interest on delayed refund - See under INTEREST ............. 385

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  316