Page 330 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

976 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Statement (Contd.)
— of dealers - Suppression of fact cannot be alleged on the basis of
statements of dealers - See under DEMAND ................... 388
— of employee of accused not reliable evidence having been retracted next
day - See under EVIDENCE ............................ 701
— of noticees without signatures of officer recording it, evidentiary value
thereof - See under EVIDENCE .......................... 538
— Reliance on - It has no evidentiary value in absence of independent
corroboration/evidence, especially when there has been retraction -
Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 — Union of India v. Kisan Ratan Singh (Bom.) .... 714
— Self-exculpatory statement without corroboration is not sufficient
evidence to establish misdeclaration - See under MISDECLARATION ..... 888
Statute - Definition of one statute cannot be applied mechanically to another
statute - See under INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE .............. 14
Statutory authority - Order passed by a Court cannot be so interpreted as
permitting a statutory authority to act in violation of statute - See under
ORDER ....................................... 840
Statutory interest admissible on delay in paying due sales proceeds of
imported goods on abandoning of goods by importer - See under
INTEREST/COMPENSATION .......................... 836
Strictures against CESTAT for non-consideration of facts and issue involved
and passing of cryptic order - The Tribunal being final fact finding body
is duty bound to discuss relevant facts, and issues arising in the case, and
then only, discussing the relevant law, case law and giving its own
reasons, can decide the case Court recorded its dismay at the tenor of the
cryptic order and set aside the order of the Tribunal — Commissioner of C. Ex.
& S.T., Chennai v. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (Mad.) ..................... 800
— against Police Department - Indisputably, the bonded warehouse was
under the control and supervision of the Customs Department and the
Central Government only - Police was not authorized to carry out any
search & seizure procedure except requesting for the same to the
Department or to the Central Government - Procedure undertaken by
police is beyond its control and that is proved unhealthy for the smooth
administration of the State Government and the Central Government -
Director General of Police is therefore required to attend such sort of acts
committed by the police and shall take up such issue before the Customs
Department and Central Government as to whether the police should
indulge into such activity or not - Issue in question pertaining to two
Governmental Departments i.e. Police Department on one hand and the
Customs Department on the other hand - Instead of trying to establish
supremacy over the issue in question by one or the other Department,
issue could have been sorted out by the Heads of both the authorities that
under whose jurisdiction, the issue falls for consideration — Sunil
Purshottam Mohatta v. State of Gujarat (Guj.) ....................... 314
— against Revenue authorities - No doubt that the authorities functioning
under the Act must, as are in duty bound, protect the interest of the
revenue by levying and collecting the duty in accordance with law, no
less and also no more - It is no part of their duty to deprive any assessee
of the benefit available to him in law with a view to augment the
quantum of duty for the benefit of the revenue - They must act
reasonably and fairly — Sunchan Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
(Mad.) ......................................... 836

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  330