Page 24 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

xxii EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373
“Segway” imported in CKD condition - Products imported were completed
assemblies of the components when put together would work as
complete Segway product - Assembled with the help of simple hand
tools like spanner, screw driver etc. for further sale in India - No plant,
machinery was required for assembling “Segway” - Classifiable under
Tariff Item 8711 90 91 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 by virtue of Rule 2(a) of
Interpretative Rules - Benefit of exemption not available under
Notification No. 12/2012-Cus — Bird Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
(Import), New Delhi (Tri. - Del.) .............................. 267
Seized goods provisional release, order is appealable - See under APPEAL
TO APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ........................... 233
Seizure - Reason to believe - Goods not proved to be specified goods liable
for confiscation whereas entire seizure and adjudication proceedings
initiated on a presumption that Goat Skin is a notified item and place of
search was a notified area, attracting the jurisdiction of the Customs
authority - Goods seized from petitioner’s godown and authorities not
having any ‘reason to believe’ that goods so seized were liable for
confiscation - Consequently, the very initiation of the proceedings against
the petitioner seems to be without jurisdiction and petitioner cannot be
compelled to participate in the auction and/or subject himself to the
confiscation proceeding - Goods so seized sold even without following
the procedure as prescribed under Section 110(1A) of Customs Act, 1962 -
Entire proceedings against the petitioner having been conducted in gross
violation of the statutory provisions of the Act stands vitiated and thus
set aside and refund of the price of 2027 pieces of Goat Skins illegally
sold by the respondent-authorities - Section 11H(e) of Customs Act, 1962
— Firoz Alam v. Union of India (Pat.) ........................... 209
Settlement of case - Effect of - Main noticee settling case - Co-noticee cannot
avoid adjudication - Merits of case against co-noticees to be examined
separately and only if co-noticees found to commit same offence as that
committed by main noticee, settlement mechanism provides for
settlement of entire case as a whole - Where act of noticees separately and
distinctly liable for penal consequences, co-noticee not to automatically
get penalty set aside on ground that case of main noticee settled - Act
committed by appellants being act in addition to that those committed by
remaining noticees, assessee not entitled to blanket immunity -
Settlement Commissioner granted liberty to Revenue to take appropriate
action against remaining noticees i.e. appellants herein - Benefit of KVS
Scheme not to be suo motu extended to appellants - Section 127B of
Customs Act, 1962 — A.V. Agro Products Ltd. v. Commr. of Cus., C. Ex. & CGST, New
Delhi (Tri. - Del.) .................................... 258
SEZ supplies under Advance authorization licence, scope of proof of export
in absence of Bill of Export - See under EXIM ................... 205
Show Cause Notice - Assistant Commissioner, 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
— stage, writ jurisdiction not exercised - See under WRIT JURISDICTION .... 190
Smuggling of gold - Bail not granted notwithstanding relaxations granted
on account of Covid-19 - See under BAIL ..................... 188
— Penalty - Appellant admitted his role in the act of smuggling of gold on
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  24