Page 17 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] INDEX - 1st August, 2020 xv
from him under duress under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, officials
of the Revenue had not confronted him with the bank transfers to
establish that the licence was sublet by the respondent to the said Shri S.
Uma Mahesh for consideration - Accordingly, Tribunal rightly gave
benefit of doubt to respondent - Tribunal’s order cannot be said to be
perverse based on no evidence or contrary to law - Regulations 10, 11(a),
17(a), 18 and 22 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 —
Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad v. Syed Jameel Uddin (Telangana) ............ 317
CUSTOMS NOTIFICATIONS :
— Notification No. 160/92-Cus. - See under EXIM ................. 368
— Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. - See under SKIN BARRIERS MICROPORE
SURGICAL TAPES ................................. 385
— Notification No. 46/2013-Cus. - See under EXIM ................. 368
CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT, 1975 :
Chapter/Heading/Sub-heading/Tariff Item
— 8544 - See under OPTICAL FIBER CABLE .................... 421
— 9001 - See under OPTICAL FIBER CABLE .................... 421
CVD paid on provisionally assessed import goods, quantum of Cenvat
Credit - See under CENVAT CREDIT ....................... 402
Date on which offence report reaches Show Cause Notice issuing authority
is relevant date for computing limitation under Customs Broker
Regulations - See under CUSTOMS BROKER .................. 323
DEMAND :
— Anti-dumping duty evasion by overvaluation of Colour TV Picture Tubes
not established, demand not sustainable - See under VALUATION
(CUSTOMS) ..................................... 415
— Limitation - Appellants importing impugned items from a long period
and such items subjected to physical examination by officers of the
Customs Department - Moreover, appellants having bona fide belief
about the availability of exemption in view of Tribunal’s decision in
Sutures India Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (370) E.L.T. 1257] - Extended period not
invokable - Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 — 3M India Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Customs, Bangalore-I (Tri. - Bang.) ............................ 385
— Limitation - Extended period, invocation of - At time of import, appellant
had provided all information required for assessment - There being no
suppression, extended period of limitation not invocable - Section 28 of
Customs Act, 1962 — P.G. Electroplast Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs,
Noida (Tri. - All.) .................................... 415
Developer and Co-Developer Unit of SEZ, scope of exemption from Service
Tax on transaction between them - See under SEZ ................ 300
Dextropropoxyphene not classifiable as Narcotic drug - See under
MEDICAMENT ................................... 294
D.G.F.T. Public Notice No. 22 (RE-2013)/2009-14, dated 12-8-2013 - See
under EXIM ..................................... 368

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  17