Page 328 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

974 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Smuggling (Contd.)
— of gold, acquittal of accused sustainable due to lack of evidence - See
under PROSECUTION ............................... 817
— of large cardamom, a non-notified goods, onus on department to establish
smuggling - See under CONFISCATION ..................... 277
— of silver - Confiscation and penalty - Silver granules of foreign origin -
Burden of proof - Silver granules fall within the definition of “silver
bullion” - Silver granules found in carton boxes specifically mentioning
the name of foreign manufacturer, lot nos., date of manufacture, etc. -
Markings on the boxes clearly indicated the silver granules to be of
foreign origin - Burden shifts on to the appellant to show how the
markings do not relate to the silver contained inside the boxes - Foreign
markings on the carton boxes/packings relate to the silver granules
contained in them and, therefore, the C.B.E. & C. Circular dated 11-6-1990
cannot apply even though less than 100 kgs - Appellant not able to
establish that silver was legally imported and suffered Customs duty -
Confiscation of goods and penalties imposed are legal and proper -
Sections 111, 112 and 123 of Customs Act, 1962 — Gaurav Agarwal v.
Commissioner of Customs, Tiruchirapalli (Tri. - Chennai) ................... 724
— of TV sets of foreign brand, evidence thereof - See under TELEVISION
SETS OF FOREIGN BRANDS ........................... 457
Soap - Laundry soap manufactured with aid of gas, exemption admissible -
See under POWER ................................. 281
Solar Cells - Small solar Cells vis-à-vis scrap/waste solar cells - See under
CONFISCATION .................................. 442
Speaking order required to be issued on re-assessment of Bill of entry - See
under ASSESSMENT ................................ 458
— to be issued for enhancement of declared value - See under
ADJUDICATION .................................. 400
Special Economic Zone - Electricity generation therein - Removal to DTA -
Exemption - Petitioner pleading that relief from payment of Customs
duty granted for period 26-6-2009 to 6-9-2010 vide earlier decision of
High Court in their earlier writ petition reported at 2015 (330) E.L.T. 883
(Guj.), which was also upheld by Apex Court, be extended for period
beyond 6-9-2010 with consequent relief of refund of Customs duty paid
by them - HELD : A conscious decision was taken in earlier writ petition
to grant limited relief for period mentioned ibid by quashing proviso to
Notification No. 25/2010-Cus., which denied exemption to electricity of
Tariff Item 2716 00 00 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 removed from Special
Economic Zone to DTA or non-processing areas of SEZs - Relief was
granted for limited period for which notification ibid, which had
amended parent Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., was given retrospective
effect - Said decision was based on correct interpretation of law as it then
existed - During aforesaid period, Rule 47(3) of SEZ Rules, 2006 was in
operation and imposing Customs duty on electricity sold in DTA
amounted to double taxation inasmuch as SEZ unit had already suffered
duty on inputs/raw materials/consumables used in generation of
electricity - However, with effect from 6-9-2010, aforesaid SEZ Rule had
been kept in abeyance and hence there was no question of double
taxation - Rather if relief was granted beyond this date, it would have
amounted to double benefit to petitioner - Even at that time, after
pronouncement of decision ibid, petitioner had moved a ‘Note for
Speaking to the Minutes’ seeking rectification of said decision for
extending relief beyond aforesaid period which after arguments was
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  328