Page 21 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] INDEX - 1st July, 2020 xix
Rules - In guidelines issued vide C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 29/2009-Cus.,
dated 15-10-2009 neither prohibition imposed against deciding
application for compounding of offences, nor contains any embargo to
the effect that application rejected earlier cannot be entertained again -
Circular/guidelines not applicable only qua case specifically excluded in
said circular/guidelines from purview of compounding - Admittedly,
earlier Application dismissed only due to embargo contained in C.B.E. &
C. Circular No. 54/2005-Cus., dated 30-12-2005 - Application for
compounding of offences can be rejected only on the grounds mentioned
in guidelines issued by Circular dated 2009 and not otherwise -
Application for compounding falls within four corners of Circular dated
2009 and same deserve to be allowed - Impugned order set aside - Section
137(3) of Customs Act, 1962 — M.C. Punjwani v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai
(Export-I) (Tri. - Mumbai) ................................ 124
Parallel investigation by Police and Customs for same offence, scope of - See
under INVESTIGATION ............................... 42
PENALTY :
— Enhancement to maximum limit of penalty as prescribed under
Regulation 5 of Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations,
2011 - Said regulation does not provide for minimum amount of penalty
and it is left to discretion of Adjudicating Authority - Expression “which
may extend to” does not relate to minimum amount of penalty but to
maximum amount of penalty which could be imposed - Order of
Commissioner (Appeals) enhancing penalty imposed by Adjudicating
Authority set aside — Scan Steel Ltd. v. Commr of CGST & C. Ex., Bhubaneswar (Tri. -
Kolkata) ........................................ 121
Police and Customs conducting parallel investigations for same offence,
scope thereof - See under INVESTIGATION .................... 42
— not authorized to file complaint or proceedings against high ranked
officials of Customs Department for obstructing investigations charge
without evidence - See under PROSECUTION................... 28
Powers of High Court to transfer appeal from one Bench of CESTAT to
another - See under APPEAL TO CESTAT ..................... 24
PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2005 :
— Section 42 - See under APPEAL ........................... 60
Prosecution and other legal proceedings not sustainable against Customs
officers for bona fide action taken in discharge of their duties - See under
PROTECTION .................................... 34
— of Customs Authorities - Failure to furnish document, record, pass permit
regarding foreign made liquor and beer and obstructing investigation -
Police not authorized to file complaint or proceedings against high
ranked officials of Customs Department - No proceedings could be
allowed against Customs officials - Also no evidence or material
presented to prosecute such official - Complaint to be quashed - Section
155 of Customs Act, 1962 - Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections 175, 176 and 186 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Commissioner
of Customs v. State of Gujarat (Guj.) ............................ 28
— to Customs Officers from prosecution and other legal proceedings for
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  21