Page 14 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

xii EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal (Contd.)
assumes nature of quasi-judicial order - Language of Section 110A(1)(a)
ibid quite wide in its application to take within its umbrella such an
order passed against which appeal would lie to Tribunal - Restrictive
meaning cannot be given to provisions - Terms used in Section 129(1)(a)
ibid are “decision” or “orders” and not limited to any final decision -
Appeal would lie before Appellate against order passed under Section
110A of Customs Act, 1962 for provisional release of goods — Commissioner
of Central Excise & Service Tax v. Gaurav Pharma Ltd. (P & H) ................ 233
— maintainable against final findings of DA refusing to impose individual
ADD - See under ANTI-DUMPING ........................ 241
Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation - Relevant date - The date
of rejection of application for amendment of bill of entry by adjudicating
authority to be considered as relevant date for computation of limitation
period for filing appeal against adjudication order - Taking this date as
relavant date, appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals) considered to
have been filed within time - Matter remanded to Commissioner
(Appeals) for disposal on merits - Sections 129 and 149 of Customs Act,
1962 — Atlas Copco India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus. (Import), Nhava Sheva (Tri. -
Mumbai) ........................................ 257
Appealable order - Provisional release of seized goods, order is appealable -
See under APPEAL TO APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ................ 233
Appellate Tribunal - Larger Bench - Constitution of - President of Tribunal’s
administrative action considering circumstances of case as to how many
members should constitute Larger Bench - Contention raised regarding
constitution of five Member Bench instead of three Members Bench not
sustainable - Section 129C(5) of Customs Act, 1962 — Commissioner of Central
Excise & Service Tax v. Gaurav Pharma Ltd. (P & H) .................... 233
Assistant Commissioner of Customs issued the show cause notice as well as
passed the order of adjudication, which is clearly contrary to the settled
principle of law - Adjudicatory order stands vitiated and is fit to be set
aside - See under ADJUDICATION ........................ 209
Bail - Cancellation by Sessions Judge - Accused applied for default bail at
10.30 a.m. on 181st day from remand - On same day, without seeking
extension of time to file final report, prosecution filed additional
complaint at 4.25 p.m. implicating two more accused, enclosing further
documents, statements, and mobile phones recovered forwarded to
forensic - Without discussion on additional complaint, bail granted on
the ground that indefeasible right to bail had accrued to accused - HELD
: Sessions Court works from time it sits till time it rises - No advantage
can be taken on the ground that petition filed at 10.30 a.m. be considered
first and later complaint filed at 4.25 p.m. be rejected - Bail granted on the
ground of indefeasible right, set aside - Madras High Court Criminal
Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1958 - Section 167(2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Intelligence Officer, DRI, Chennai v. M. Ravindran
(Mad.) ......................................... 162
— Smuggling of gold - Serious accusations against petitioner - Matter under
investigation - Premature to state that no incriminating material available
in proof of offence - It cannot be said that petitioner was no way involved
in alleged smuggling activity - Contention that petitioner carried on
smuggling activity through WhatsApp conversation with accused No. 1 -
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  14