Page 22 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

xx EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373
Limitation for appeal - Delay when condonable/not condonable - See under
APPEAL ....................................... 257
Limitation for demand - Extended period when applicable/inapplicable -
See under DEMAND ............................. 193, 267
Limitation for refund of interest of Warehoused goods - See under
INTEREST ...................................... 223
MAJOR PORT TRUST ACT, 1963 :
— Section 48 - See under DEMAND ......................... 196
Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) - Entitlement to - Assessee
while claiming benefit of MEIS, indicating intention to claim reward
under MEIS in specific box provided for same in software that provided
for uploading details to web portal of Central Government but omitted to
check box, to show intention to claim reward in respect of export
consignment, stating “Yes” - System recorded default setting, which
indicated “No” - Inadvertent mistake by assessee - Denial of claim for
export benefit not to be done in mechanical manner merely because of a
technical lapse on exporter’s part in not checking a particular box in web
portal, more so when there was sufficient indication from other details
entered therein that pointed out to exporter’s intention to claim rewards -
In the matter of condoning such an omission, there cannot be a
discrimination between exporters who made the claim within six months
and those who have raised the claim after six months of introduction of
the Scheme - Order of Single Judge upheld - Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-
20 — Commissioner of Customs, Cochin v. Mangalath Cashews (Ker.) ............. 149
Misdeclaration not established by mere generation of wrong export
documents due to defect in inventory software, confiscation and penalty
not sustainable - See under CONFISCATION AND PENALTY ......... 286
— of country of origin on import of Bitumen, penalty not imposable - See
under IMPORT ................................... 280
— of facts established, extended period of demand invocable - See under
DEMAND ...................................... 267
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - See under IMPORT ... 167
Natural justice not violated when several effective opportunity of hearing
given by adjudicating authority but not availed - See under
ADJUDICATION .................................. 258
Obstruction in Customs investigations, scope of summons under Section
108 of Customs Act - See under SUMMONS ................... 145
PENALTY :
— Appellant No. 2 namely Shri Rony Abraham, Manager Sales and
appellant No. 3 namely Shri Ankur Bhatia, Director of the Appellant No.
1 fully aware that appellant company importing complete Segway
electrically operated product in CKD condition by misdeclaring the same
as CKD parts of components - Both of them instrumental and devising a
modus operandi to evade Customs duty by wrongly availing the benefit
of the Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. - Considering the involvement of
both the appellants in entire activity, imposition of penalty on them
under Sections 114A and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 justified — Bird
Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi (Tri. - Del.) .......... 267
— imposable on accused of gold smuggling - See under SMUGGLING ...... 159

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  22